This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The Organization's first issue is that the Claimant was denied a fair and impartial Hearing because the Claimant did not receive a postponement notice which rescheduled the Hearing from September 9 to September 14, 2004. It also objects to the testimony of witnesses at the Hearing because they were not listed in advance to be witnesses and the process of receiving the witness testimony at the Hearing.
The Board does not rind that the Claimant's Hearing was unfair or prejudicial in any manner. The Claimant was given the opportunity to fully crossexamine each witness and ,vas not hindered in any way in putting on any evidence, including providing his own witnesses if he desired. As to the Notice of Investigation, the transcript evidence is clear that the Claimant's representative received notice of the Hearing for September 14, 2006. It is for that reason that they were present and ready to proceed with the Hearing. While we find this was not a model inquiry, we find no procedural error in the calling of the witnesses nor in the sequence in which they were called. There was no infringement upon the Claimant's Agreement due process rights in this matter.
As to the Claimant's issue of the five-day suspension for violation of Rule 1.10, 7(b) many Awards have acknowledged the latitude given to the Carrier for the enforcement of safety regulations. The evidence revealed that the Claimant lost an entire year of work due to an injury he received when he decided to use material on the ground to build himself up to install an over-height sign post. This decision was not an exercise of good judgment. By imposing a five-day suspension on the Claimant for not asking for assistance or guidance, not stably bracing himself, and not overreaching in the use of his equipment to install the sign post, the Carrier did not abuse its discretion.