' AWARD NO. 57



PARTIES) UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
    TO ) -

DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

 STATEMENT Off' CLAIM:

 (1) The decision rendered in the discipline case involving Section Foreman C. W. Sanchez by Mr. C. O. Malone-, i.e., someone other than Hearing Officer R. N.-Hamilton, is inappropriate and/or invalid.

 (2) The discipline assessed Mr. _ Sanchez (30 days deferred suspen
 sion) for alleged violation of companyrules as indicated in Mr.
 Malone's letter of September 14, 1992, without the benefit of -
 identifying or analyzing the possible application of those rules
 at the investigation, is inappropriate and invalid as well.

 (3) The discipline referred to under (2) or any discipline assessed -
 in this regard is arbitrary, capricious-_andtotally unwarranted.

 (4) Because of (1), (2) and (3) above, the discipline referred to
 herein must be cancelled and any mention ofthis matter must be
 removed from Mr. Sanchez' personal discipline -record.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 4338 finds that the parties __ _ herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the RailwayLabor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute the claimant was notified to attend-=an investigation in Cheyenne, Wyoming on July 20, 1992 to develop the facts and place the responsibility, if any, in connection with the alleged report that on June 29, 1992 at-approximately 3:00-p.m. while he was employed as Section Foreman at MP 605, he sustained a personal injury, indicating possible violations of Maintenance of Way Rules, Block, Signal, Cab Signal and Interlocking Rules effective November 1, 1991
 or instructions as issued by proper authority. ° --

 Th a investigation was postponed and was then held on August 27, 1992.

 The Board has read the transcript of the investigation and_Tias studied
 all of the allegations of the parties herein, - `$''-"`- -- -

 Rule 48(c) states:

      "Prior to the hearing, the employee alleged to .be at fault _

      shall be apprised in writing of the precise natu-re-of-they,

      charge(s) sufficiently in advance-of the time set--fc%'r'_tlie

                                            '1336

' Award No. 57 -
                                            Page 2


      hearing to-allow reasonable opportunity to secure a representative of his choice and the presence of necessary


                                        -__witnesses. . ." The Notice of Investigation dated July 3, 1992 simply states:

". . . possible violation of Maintenance of Way Rules, Block
 Signal, Cab Signal and Interlocking Rules effective November 1,
 1991 or instructions as issued by proper authority."

 Although the date of this letter apparently should have been July 6, and there is another notice of formal investigation of that date, which is recognized as being the appropriate notice. How ever, the notice dated July 6 is no more precise than the one dated July 3, 1992. The notice therein in imprecise and does not comply with Rule 48(c).

 For that reason the Carrier is directed to set the disci -pline
 aside and all remarks regarding this incident will be_removed from
 the claimant's personal record. ,__

 AWARD: Claim sustained. _

 ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply with this award within
 thirty days from the date of this. award. _

                                  ~~_4

                                            0: ~4v

                                Preston J Moore, Chairman -


                                Union Mem er


                                    . 1


                          ' Carrier Membe