On October 6, 1989, a claim was filed with the Carrier on grounds that three letters had been placed in the Claimant's file. The letters implied that the Claimant wasted work time, and that he had not been taking proper care of equipment issued to him. According to the claim these letters represented "...nothing more than" discipline. Relief requested was that the letters should be removed from the Claimant's file.
In response to the claim the Manager of Personnel & Labor Relations advised the organization that "...no letters (had) been placed (in the Claimant's) personnel file in this office which maintains the only authorized file." That Manager did note, however, that the S&E supervisor who wrote the letters may have maintained some type of file in his office. If such were so, however, that file was only for the S&E supervisor's own use.
In appealing the denial of the claim the Organization maintained, nevertheless, that the S&E supervisor was "...maintaining some type of file that could be used against" the Claimant. The organization reiterated its original claim.
Final denial by the Carrier prior to the docketing of this claim before the National Railroad Adjustment Board for final adjudication states that such letters of the type hereunder consideration are only letters of counselling or warning. According to the Carrier, these letters did not represent discipline, and none had been levied against the Claimant.
Upon review of the full record the Board must conclude that there had been no discipline levied against the Claimant. Rule 50 of the Agreement deals with investigations related to discipline. That Rule does not apply in the instant case. The letters issuea were a form of counselling, which were written and not oral, and they never became part of the Claimant's personnel file.
There is abundant arbitral precedent in this industry to warrant conclusion that letters of the type at bar in this case are not discipline and the Board must rule accordingly. (See Second Division Awards 8062, 8531, 11683; Third Division Awards 24953, 27805, 27807). In a comparable case Award 41 of Public Law Board 2789 ruled as follows, which the Board cites here, in pertinent part, with favor: