That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rule 32 of the Current Controlling Agreement between the International Association of Machinists and the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company dated June 1, 1960, as subsequently revised and amended when it harshly and unjustly placed a letter of discipline dated June 11, 1992 on the personal record of Machinist K. T. Kellner account his alleged failure to accurately complete his daily time card at the end of his shift, without first holding a formal investigation to determine the facts.

That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company remove from Machinist K. T. Kellner's personal record the June 11, 1992, letter of discipline and clear his service record of all references to the incident."

The Organization filed this Claim alleging Carrier violation of Rule 32 of the Agreement. Specifically, the Organization argues on property that a letter dated June 11, 1992, and entered into the Claimant's permanent record, amounts to discipline. The Organization maintains that the Claimant is protected from discipline by Rule 32, unless provided with his Agreement rights to a fair and impartial Investigation. Absent Investigation, the letter inserted into the Claimant's personal record is violative of the Agreement.

The Carrier denies that the letter is anything other than the report of a conference between the Manager and the Claimant. It notes that the letter states only performance expectations. Contrary to the organization's characterization of the letter as containing "accusatory tones" which could "indisputably be construed as discipline," the Carrier denies that the letter is anything other than a documented conference.

In reaching its decision, this Board has carefully reviewed the instant letter in light of the prior Awards raised by both parties to this dispute. The Organization has directed our attention to Awards which have removed such letters for violating Rules and constituting discipline (Second Division Awards 7588, 9412, 12513, 12514). The Carrier has emphasized those Awards holding that letters of warning or those general enough to constitute non-accusatory conference letters do not violate Rules as herein alleged (Second Division Awards 9522, 12448).

This Board has reviewed the disputed letter. We have studied its language to determine if it makes a conclusionary finding that the Claimant violated a Rule. We have reviewed its contents to assess whether it is general or specific, discussing the employees performance or containing language implying a Rule violation. The letter is addressed to the Claimant and states:

"Dear Mr. Kellner:

This will confirm my discussion with you on June 11, 1992 at approximately 10:30 a.m., held at Jenks Shop Office concerning your responsibility to accurately complete your time card.

In this regard you have been advised that you must ensure that you record the actual hours worked, associated to the appropriate work codes, accurately and that you personally hand your time card to your supervisor at the completion of your tour of duty.

If you fail to meet the above expectations, it may result in a managers conference or formal investigation. I know you can meet these expectations, and I am here to help you succeed.

Any questions concerning these expectations, please contact me at your convenience."

In view of the letter as written, this Board finds no violation of the Agreement Rule 32. Unlike the Awards cited by the Organization, supra, there is no statement alleging that the Claimant violated any specified Rule of the Agreement. There is no unequivocal statement that the Carrier has found the Claimant to have committed a violation. The Board does not find the letter to be either accusatory, or conclusionary as failing to properly fulfill responsibilities. The Board concludes that the letter is properly a conference letter and does not rise to the level of constituting disciplinary action. Its placement with the Claimant's personnel file does not violate Rule 32. The Claim is denied.

AWARD