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 August 31, 1992 on the personal record of Machinist D. A. Tackett (hereinafter referred to as Claimant) account his alleged misappropriation of railroad property, without first holding a formal investigation to determine the facts.

That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company remove from Machinist D. A. Tackett's personal record the August 31, 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 August 31, 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 but 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 nonaccusatory 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. Tackett:

This will confirm my discussion with you on 8 26, 1992 at 4:00 p.m., at the Ramp Phase II, as concerns your employee responsibility to care of property. In this regard you were advised that you must ensure that You familiarize yourself with Rule 609 in the Safety Radio and General Rules Book which reads in part "Employees must not appropriate railroad property for their personal use or for the unauthorized use of others.

95-2-93-2-124