Claimant Gartner, a veteran Track Foreman, was working as a Track Inspector under the supervision of Roadmaster A. T. Goodwin at the time this grievance arose. At a meeting on Monday, April 29, 1996, Goodwin informed his crew that they would be working ten hours a day for a period of time, and requested that everyone make arrangements to work late. During the course of a second meeting later that day, Goodwin repeated those instructions. On May 8, following a brief telephone conversation with Goodwin, Claimant worked two hours beyond his normal 3:30 P.M. quitting time to complete certain repairs, under the misapprehension that he had been implicitly authorized to do. Later that day, Goodwin informed Claimant that he did not have permission to work overtime and that an Investigation would be held to determine whether Claimant had failed to comply with his instructions.
On May 17, prior to the Investigation then scheduled for May 24, 1996, the General Chairman and Roadmaster Goodwin reached an understanding by which Claimant would receive a 45 day suspension, to be held in abeyance for six months. On May 23, Goodwin advised the General Chairman that the settlement concluded earlier would not implemented. The Investigation went forward the following day, as a result of which Claimant was dismissed for failure to follow instructions. On August 8, he was reinstated on a leniency basis effective August 14, with time out of service and disqualification as a Foreman to serve as discipline. On December 9, Carrier unilaterally reinstated Claimant's Foreman rights and seniority.
The issue presented to the Board for consideration is whether the Claimant's disciplinary suspension from May 31 to August 14, 1996 was warranted. Based upon examination of the record herein, including review of the Hearing transcript in which it is clear that Claimant freely admitted full responsibility for the incident, we conclude that the degree of discipline imposed was not reasonably related to the offense. On the unique facts of this case, the Carrier's interest in administering corrective discipline would have been served by simply assessing a 45 day overhead suspension for a period of six months as initially agreed upon by the parties.