®n January 29, 2004, Carrier notified Claimants to appear for a formal Investigation which was postponed and then subsequently held on March 26, 2004 concerning the following charge:
On April 13, 2004, both Claimants were no' that they had been found guilty of all charges and were assessed a Formal Caution.
It is the Carrier's ' 'An that the Local Chairman. (Claimant Faucher) improperly submitted a time claim in behalf of one of his members (Claimant Gardner) based upon mere speculation that Carrier violated the Agreement and without any investigative due diligence as to its merits. According to it, both Claimants hoped to gain an inappropriate double payment for Gardner. The Carrier argues that this is not an attempt by it to stop the Organization from submitting claims, but rather a corrective measure to insure that the Organization does its fun ental investigation on whether a claim should be submitted at all, which according to it in this instance should not have been done.
It is the Organization's position that there was no reason to hold the Investigation nor did the Carrier prove any impropriety. According to it, the time claims were submitted in compliance with the Agreement and without any intent to defraud the Carrier. The Local Chairman was doing his job to protect his member, who also had no knowledge of his representative's actions, therefore, it requests that the Formal Cautions be removed from both Claimant's personnel record.
The Board has thoroughly reviewed the record and is not persuaded by the Carrier's arguments as to why it called for the instant Investigation. It has no right to call for an Investigation on the basis it does not believe the Organization has done enough investigative work before riling a claim nor does it have any right to discipline the Local Chairman or his member. The Carrier has the mechanism in the grievance handling provisions of the Agreement to guard against frivolous claims. It merely has to deny the claim. The Railway Labor Act gives the Form 1 Award No. 13914
Organization an unfettered right to represent its members without interference or intimidation. Contrary to the Carrier's argument the record is clear that it used the disciplinary provisions of the Agreement to send a message to the Local Chairman and his member to watch out if you submit a time claim. The Carrier's coloration of its motives do not change the fact that it improperly interfered with the Organization's right in this instance to represent its members. The Hoard finds and holds that the discipline was arbitrary and capricious and is rescinded by removing the Formal Caution from both Claimants' personnel records.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the C ' t(s) he made: The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following ' the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.