"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-12799) that:

The Carrier violated the Amtrak Northeast Corridor Clerk's Rules Agreement on July 18, 2000, when it acted in an. arbitrary and capricious manner when it assessed a formal warning letter against Claimant D. Hoeler, was without just and sufficient cause on the basis of unproven and disproved charges. The Carrier's failure to have Claimant's Union representative participating in the discussions, and/or upon resolutions, mandate a voiding of those results. Claimant D. Hoeler's record now be expunged from any and all formal warning letters that should pertain to the violation on July 18, 2000.

The claim has been presented in accordance with Rule 25 Grievances, from the off Corridor Clerks Rules Agreement dated June 1998, and should be allowed and accepted."

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment- Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Claimant D. Hoeler was working as an Usher at Penn Station in New York City when the instant claim arose. On July 18, 2000, the Claimant was requested to meet with her Supervisor, J. Roseen, to discuss two passenger complaints, as well as comments from an Amtrak Reservation Sales Agent regarding the Claimant's disrespectful attitude while discussing a customer complaint with her. As a result of that meeting, Supervisor Roseen sent the Claimant a Memorandum detailing what they discussed. The Memorandum reads as follows:

"National Railroad Passenger Corporation Interoffice Memo

Date: July 20, 2000

To: D. Hoeler

From: J. Roseen

Subject: Passenger/Employee Complaints

This will confirm our discussion on Tuesday morning, July 18, 2000 relative to the following:

Superintendent M. Gallagher received a telephone call on Monday, July 17, 2000 from Amtrak guest Sandra Ferreira who traveled train #66 on July 13, 2000. She complained that you were rude and less then helpful when she inquired about train delays. Amtrak Reservation Agent Julie Kams alleged you yelled and were disrespectful toward her (copy attached) in a telephone conversation on July 16, 2000.

Upon receiving this Memorandum, the Claimant sought advice from the Organization and on August 21, 2000 the instant claim was filed.

The Organization contends that the July 20, 2000 Memorandum is far more accusatory than a counseling memo should be. It can only be read to mean that the Claimant is guilty of the allegations against her and is being put on notice that such behavior in the future will result in discipline. The Organization considers this action to be in violation of the Claimant's right to representation and due process, as is required by Agreement.

The Carrier takes the position that the Claimant was certainly involved in some way in inappropriate behavior and she is on notice that such behavior, if repeated, would be unacceptable and may result in discipline. It does not consider the Memorandum as discipline, but only as instructive.

The Board reviewed a long list of such cases in the past. In these cases, the Board has overwhelmingly decided that counseling an employee before formal discipline is assessed is the appropriate path to follow. The Board concludes from its review of this record that the Carrier's actions were not in violation of any terms of the Agreement or any established practice that an Organization representative is required to be present at what is characterized by the Carrier as an employee counseling session. The crux of disputes such as this is how the Memorandum can

03-3-02-3-126