We started the conference by ascertaining that you understand the qualifications and duties as a foreman and these duties include proper preparation of reports. You agreed that you did understand these qualifications and duties. I stated to you that the reason for your disqualification was your continued failure to properly fulfill your responsibilities and duties as a foreman and discussed in detail your failures to maintain proper records and reports as required in your position. We went over your December timeroll in detail and it was pointed out to you where you had shown men working that were not shown on record as being there. These discrepancies were found when you went on vacation on December 12, 1988 and action taken by Roadmaster to see that payments were made correctly.

We also discussed two other instances in 1988 in which discipline was assessed account your failure to properly maintain records. Mr. Hanks pointed out that these instances of discipline were being appealed to the 3rd Division Labor Board.

You were asked if you had an explanation why the records were not properly filled out between December 1 and 9, 1988. You talked about the lines not lining up in the book and then about people not being there, that were actually there. It was pointed out that the records show you had 10 people on the payroll on December 1 and you showed time for 10 people. But you did not in all instances show time for the people that were there.

Mr. Hanks stated he did not feel you should be disqualified but allowed to return to your foreman's job and be put on probation. If you did not properly fulfill your duties during the probationary time, you could be again disqualified without a hearing or conference being afforded you. Mr. Hanks stated that you would have to be agreeable in terms of any agreement that would be made.

I advised that I would take this under consideration and would advise in the near future my decision concerning this suggestion. It was then pointed out that your old foreman's position had been abolished and if the agreement was made and agreed to by all parties, you would be allowed to exercise your seniority to the foreman's rights.

This completed the conference at 3:05pm."

The Organization challenges the Carrier's action on both its merits and procedural grounds. Procedurally, it contends the Claimant was disciplined and that the Carrier improperly denied him his rights to an Investigation under Rule 14.

With respect to this issue, the Board notes that a review of the record fails to reveal that on the property the organization ever raised the Rule 14 argument. Accordingly, the Board is without jurisdiction to consider it.

Accepting that the case before us is a disqualification/unjust treatment issue and not a discipline matter, the Board finds no basis in the record to conclude that the Carrier abused its discretion. The Claimant's failings were rather fundamental and were certainly enough to reasonably undermine the necessary confidence a Carrier must have in its foreman.

In view of the foregoing, the claim is denied.

AWARD