STATEMENT OF CLAIM: That the Carrier's decision to assess Claimant Gilbert Louis a 30-day deferred suspension after investigation January 14, 1991 was unjust.
That the Carrier now expunge the 30-day deferred suspension from Claimant's record, reimbursing him for all wage loss and, expenses incurred as a result of attending the investigation January 14, 1991, bedimse a. review of the investigation transcript reveals that substantial evidence :was not introduced that indicates Claimant is (not) guilty of violation of rules~he was charged with in the Notice of Investigation.
FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 4244 (the "Board") finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter involved.
In this dispute Central Region Welder Gilbert Louis,- (the-,- "Claimant'") was notified to attend a formal investigation at Belen;='NeMexico on January 3, 1991 concerning his alleged failure to follow the instructions of Welding Supervisor J. E. Mayhill when he replaced a defective weld at M.P. 834.7 with a 1 3/4-in. wide gap thermite weld on December 11, 1990 in possible violation of Rule 1044 of the Carrier's Rules Maintenance of Way and Structures. The investigation was postponed and held on January 14, 1991. Pursuant to the investigation the Carrier determined that the Claimant performed an improper weld and he was assessed a 30-day deferred suspension.
The evidence of record showed that on or about November 9, 1990, the Claimant participated in a demonstration concerning the proper use of a wide gap weld. The demonstration included specific instructions that a wide gap weld could not be used to cut out a defective weld. The demonstration was conducted by Welding Supervisor J. E. Mayhill. Accordingly to Mayhill's testimony, the Claimant, like other Carrier welders, must be qualified to make independent decisions while in the field because supervisors and employees must rely upon the welder's expertise.
Based on the evidence and testimony of record the Board finds that the Claimant failed to follow the instructions of Welding Supervisor Mayhill on December 11, 1990 as alleged. The Claimant had an absolute responsibility to inform Luna of his incorrect instruction to do a wide gap weld. Accordingly, the Board finds 'that a deferred suspension is appropriate discipline.
However, the Board finds that if the deferred suspension is activated, 30 days would be excessive. The Claimant's personal file shows that he has over 35 years of service and no outstanding demerits. .Moreover, it is impossible to ascertain from the Carrier's documents summarizing the Claimant's employment record when the Claimant had been disciplined in the past and for what reasons. Moreover, the record suggests that the Claimant has received an average of only six demerits a year. Using this data, it would be excessive discipline for him to serve 30 days. Thus, the discipline is reduced to a 10-day deferred suspension.