Claimant Garcia made a proper request for such a hearing on August 26,1995, after having been unjustly removed from her PAD Position 005 in Personnel Services on August 25, 1995 and this hearing should now be granted."
By correspondence dated August 22,1995, the Carrier notified Claimant that the Carrier was removing her from the position of Personnel Information Specialist. In its letter, the Carrier informed Claimant that it was removing Claimant because of ongoing interpersonal conflicts involving Claimant and another employee which undermined a productive work environment.
Pursuant to a letter agreement dated April 23, 1992, this position, among others, was designated as a PAD position, that is, a position exempt from the promotion, assignment anddisplacementRulesoftheapplicableAgreement. Therefore, theCarrier retained the prerogative to appoint an employee to fill a PAD position and conversely, it may remove an incumbent of the PAD position (and appoint a replacement). Rule 50 permits an employee who believes they have been unjustly treated to request an Unjust Treatment Hearing in writing within 15 days of the cause of the employee's complaint. Within two days, Claimant properly requested a Rule 50 Unjust Treatment Hearing.
The Carrier denied Claimant's request to convene a Rule 50 Unjust Treatment Hearing on the grounds that it had the unilateral right to remove her from the PAD position.
A prior decision of this Board held that an employee removed from excepted positions are entitled to a Hearing to contest the removal if the employee properly tenders the request in conformity with Rule 50. In Third Division Award 22477, the Board observed that the right to an Unjust Treatment Hearing cannot be abridged simply because the outcome of the Hearing may be a foregone conclusion or because the Carrier's decision is not subject to reversal.
We agree with the holding in Award 22477. The Rules covering PAD positions and an Unjust Treatment Hearing are separate provisions of the Agreement. Therefore, the right of an employee to be afforded a Rule 50 Unjust Treatment Hearing is distinct from the Carrier's right to remove the incumbent of a PAD position. Moreover, the provisions are compatible and thus, can be enforced without one nullifying the other.
While Claimant cannot contest the Carrier's decision to remove her, convening a Rule 50 Unjust Treatment Hearing may serve other, laudatory purposes. First, even though the possibility is remote, Claimant may come forward with evidence and arguments which convinces her superiors that she should maintain her PAD position albeit, this Board stresses that the final decision rests with the Carrier. Second, the Form 1 Page 3
Unjust Treatment Hearing will permit Claimant to tell her side of the story which will have some therapeutic value. At least, Claimant will know that she was given a chance to articulate her view. Third, compelling the Carrier to conduct an Unjust Treatment Hearing enforces Rule 50. The parties do not write rules in the Agreement with the expectation that this Board will declare them perfunctory or meaningless.
Therefore, the Carrier shall grant Claimant's request for a Rule 50 Unjust Treatment Hearing and it shall convene the Hearing at the earliest convenience of Claimant and the Carrier.