by its own failure to include the testimony of each witness in its entirety, the Carrier has deprived the Organization of the very proof of contradiction it has required be provided.

Finally, the Organization contends that, with the unsupported assertion that he had penned his own notes during the proceedings, Carrier's Hearing Officer has made a blatantly misleading attempt to present the appearance that he had been diligent in his attention to the ongoing proceedings and that his diligence could be relied upon for the creation of an accurate record of the Investigation. The Organization asserts, however, that the Hearing Officer actually took no notes whatsoever during the proceedings, and his declaration that he relied upon his notes to provide an accurate record and form his decision of guilt is utterly false. During on-property appeals handling Carrier's response to the issue of the Hearing Officer's misstatements amounted to "so what." In sum, Carrier's actions show a blatant disregard for observing even the most basic principles of due process, and the instant claim should be sustained on the basis of this fatal procedural flaw.

This Board has continually held that the multiple roles served by Carrier officers inherent in the present system of grievance processing place a serious burden upon those officers to be as fair as is reasonably possible under the circumstances. (See for example First Division Award 11364; Third Division Award 18150). We have allowed Carrier some leeway where minor errors in transcription, or other de mdnimis problems have occurred in building a Hearing record or submitting a transcript to the Organization. That is not the case before us here. By Carrier's own admission, the first two witnesses' testimonies were not recorded. The first was not recorded at all, and the second was recorded only partially. There is an unanswered challenge that there were no "notes" from which Carrier's Officer could credibly "reconstruct" testimony which the Organization asserts was contradictory. Even more disturbing is Carrier's cavalier attitude concerning these serious irregularities. In its initial response to the Organization's procedural objections the Carrier responded:

"...Even if, as you contend, Mr. Utlmark (the hearing offtcerl failed to take notes at the investigation, there is no indication the investigation record deleted any information which would have altered the outcome of this dispute. Further, you have offered no specifics to support your contention that the testimony of Mr. Ralph Magnum, District Supervisor, Customer Services was `contradictory to the testimony of

In short, the Carrier has told the Organization in form or substance that, since the record which the Hearing Officer reconstructed de novo from his alleged notes is incomplete, and the Organization is thereby prevented from quoting from an accurate record, the Organization has failed in its burden of persuasion to show that the actual testimonial evidence presented was significant to its position. Such Byzantine reasoning removes even the premise of a fair proceeding in this case. Having poisoned the process, the Carrier now asserts that the Organization has failed to provide "specifics" the Carrier itself has prevented the Organization from finding. As the Board held in Third Division Award 18150,

"...Carrier by its nonfeasance - failure to make (availablel'all statements made a matter of record at the investigation or hearing' -- could not comply with the demand [for a full transcript. As a result, it prevented Claimant from perfecting his contractual right of appeal to Carrier's initial findings of guilt as charged and assessment of the penalty: `discharged.' Consequently, we rind that Claimant was denied due process."

AWARD