Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 39339
Docket No. MW-39922
08-3-NRAB-00003-070077
(07-3-77)

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Gerald E. Wallin when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division - ( IBT Rail Conference PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Soo Line Railroad Company (former Chicago, Milwaukee, ( St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:





FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
Form 1 Award No. 39339
Page 2 Docket No. MW-39922


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.




The Claimant twisted his ankle while attempting to step over loose ballast on a crosstie while carrying tools after performing some FRA defect correction work. The Claimant admitted seeing the loose ballast before trying to step over it. On October 25, 2005, four days after the injury incident, the Claimant and his supervisor met for a Formal Counseling session in accordance with Section 1 of the Carrier's Positive Behavior & Performance Development Policy. As part of that process, the Claimant's supervisor opted to complete a Performance Development Plan. Parts 1-7 of the Plan were completed by the supervisor.


In Part 1, the supervisor described the behavior or performance issue leading to the counseling as follows:



In Part 3, the supervisor described the future performance to be required of the Claimant as follows:



Similar supervisor comments were listed in Part 4 to describe the measures that the Claimant needed to take to raise his performance to the required level. Finally, in Part 7, the plan listed three future dates on which the Claimant's

Form 1 Award No. 39339
Page 3 Docket No. MW-39922


performance would be reviewed with him: October 28, November 11, and November 28, 2005.


Space was provided for the Claimant's comments in Part 8. The Claimant wrote:




The Performance Development Plan was completed and signed by both the Claimant and his supervisor on October 25, 2005.


Six days later, by letter dated October 31, 2005, a different Carrier official initiated the Investigation into the Claimant's injury that resulted in the 5-day suspension and the instant claim.


The Organization advanced a procedural objection at the Investigation and maintained the objection during the appeal process on the property. It based its objection on the doctrine that prohibits "double jeopardy." In the Organization's view, the Claimant was disciplined twice for the same offense. We agree.


The Carrier's Positive Behavior & Performance Development Policy is a 17page document that essentially categorizes behavioral and/or performance misconduct into three stages for appropriate handling. Section 1 defines the stages of Informal Counseling and Formal Counseling. Informal Counseling is directed at the least serious infractions and does not result in any documentation.




Form 1 Award No. 39339
Page 4 Docket No. MW-39922
08-3-NRAB-00003-070077
(07-3-77)
thoroughly discuss the work performance or attitude which may
have contributed to an incident and to identify specific steps to be
taken by the employee to ensure proper performance in the future.
Formal counseling will include written documentation of the
discussion and performance expectations or a written Positive
Action Plan, which should be jointly developed by the supervisor
and the employee."
Section 2 of the Policy deals with discipline under the Agreement. By the
terms of the Policy, this stage is reserved for more serious matters. The initial
paragraph of the section reads as follows:


It is clear from the record that the Claimant's immediate supervisor fully exercised the option under the Carrier's policy to invoke Formal Counseling after discussing the matter with the Claimant. The existence of the signed Positive Development Plan confirms that this option was exercised. The policy is clear that a supervisor can invoke Informal Counseling or Formal Counseling or discipline under the Agreement, but not more than one of the stages for the same incident. Indeed, the policy illustrates this election of options graphically on page 11. After the supervisor's completed exercise of the Formal Counseling option with the Personal Development Plan, the matter was fully and finally handled under the policy for the injury in question. The on-property record does not show any evidence whatsoever of subsequent behavior or performance deficiencies that would justify invoking the discipline procedure under the Agreement.


Given the foregoing discussion, we must conclude that the Carrier did attempt to discipline the Claimant twice for the same injury. Thus, we must sustain the Organization's objection and overturn the five-day suspension he has been assessed. The Carrier is directed to reimburse the Claimant for his actual wage loss resulting from the suspension pursuant to Rule 18 of the Agreement.

Form 1 Award No. 39339
Page 5 Docket No. MW-39922
08-3-NRAB-00003-070077
(07-3-77)



      Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of September 2008.