UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION (C&T)
AND
CS% TRANSPORTATION, INC. (FORMER B&0 RAILROAD C0.)
The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted, that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and that the parties ::ere given due notice of the hearing held.
On Sepcember 5, 1986 separate letters of charge were issued to each of the Claimancs charging them with "responsibility in connection with
The investigation originally scheduled for September 10, 1986 was postponed upon request of the Local Chairman until September 18, 1986. As a result of the investigation both Claimants were found guilty as charged. By separate letters dated October 24, 1986 both Claimants were so advised and notified that they were assessed discipline of thirty (30) days actual suspension.
The Carrier asserts that both investigations were conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that the evidence developed during the course of each investigation proved conclusively that each Claimant was guilty as charged. It further contends that the violation was of such serious nature as to justify the discipline imposed.
The Organization contends that the Carrier committed two procedural defects in using a tape recorder in lieu of a stenographic report under Agreement Rule 17(e) and in not rendering its decision promptly as required by Rule 17(c).
The Organization also contends that the Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof that the Claimants made false time claims and asserts that they were not properly advised by the Carriers as to what corrective action should be taken when the contractors did not show up for their
As the Board stated in Award No. 129 we find no merit in the Organization's position regarding the Carrier's use of a tape recorder instead of a stenographer to record the investigation- as long as a stenographic report is then prepared from the tape and is provided to the Claimant or his representative as required by Rule 17(e). The use of a to?e recording device at investigative hearings is not, in and of itself, a violation of the Agreement.
Regarding the other procedural objection raised by the Organization, however, the Board agrees that the Carrier did not meet its obligation under Rule 17(c) of the Agreement to provide prompt advice of the Carrier's decision. Thirty-six days elapsed in each case from the date of investigation until the notification by the Carrier of its assessment of discipline. The Carrier has not demonstrated that the time lapse was reasonable. As the Carrier did not comply with Rule 17(c), the Board will sustain these claims.