The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Following a Hearing, Claimant was assessed a 90-day suspension for failing to properly inspect track. At the Hearing, it was established that Claimant inspected the track in the vicinity of Nugget, Wyoming, on June 23, 1990. The following day, there was a twelve car derailment, attributed to a low joint at mile post 55.06. Claimant's inspection did not reveal a defect at that location. Form 1 Award No. 29584
In addition to asserting the carrier failed to prove its charge against Claimant, the Organization raises several procedural arguments. First, it states Carrier failed to provide the General Chairman with a copy of the Hearing transcript and discipline notice. Rule 48(f) provides as follows:
This issue was raised by the General Chairman in his letter of appeal, and was answered by Carrier then tendering the documents. Carrier asserts it complied with the Rule by doing so, as there is no time limit specified in the Rule. We do not agree Carrier has no time limit on the delivery of the transcript. The Rule requires it to be furnished "promptly." At the very least, Carrier is obligated to provide the transcript to those responsible for appealing the discipline prior to the expiration of the time limits for making such appeals. This, obviously, is the purpose of the Rule. Although carrier did not do so, it did offer the General Chairman additional time to file his appeal following his receipt of the transcript. Thus, while we find Carrier in technical violation of the Rule, we do not find this violation prejudicial to Claimant's rights under the Agreement.
The organization has also objected to the fact that the discipline was rendered by someone other than the Hearing Officer. Furthermore, the official who issued the discipline was also the first official to whom the discipline was appealed. Absent an Agreement provision prohibiting this, we do not find Claimant was denied the due process assured by the Agreement. There is no
evidence the discipline decision was based upon anything other than the evidence developed at the Hearing. Additionally, the claim was afforded independent review when it was appealed by the General Chairman.
Finally, we do not agree with the organization's assertion the Hearing was defective because Claimant was not given a precise notice. The organization's objection is based upon the fact the notice of charge did not specify the Rules which would be the subject of the Hearing. As we have stated many times, the purpose of the notice is to advise the employee of the scope of the Investigation and to prevent surprise or misleading accusations by the Carrier. It is not necessary, unless explicitly stated in the Agreement, to cite specific Rule violations in the notice of charge. The notice issued to Claimant met the requirements of the Rule. Form 1 Award No. 29584
With regard to the merits, we find there was substantial evidence to support the Carrier's conclusion that Claimant should have detected the low joint during his inspection the day before the derailment. In view of Claimant's prior record, which includes a 1980 dismissal for a similar offense, we do not find the assessment of a 90-day suspension in this case to be excessive or unreasonable.