PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:

UV70N PACIFIC RALLROAD COMP--~_ (Western Region)



BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENODVEERS

STATENL'VT OF CLAM:


OPINION OF BOARD: Following an investigation into charges presented by Manager of Train Operations M.S. Leadterbury on July 25. 1999. Superintendent Workman issued a notice of discipline against Claimant, dated -3u=ust '.1, 1999, as follows:




The grounds set forth in the Vice General Chairman's letter of August 26, 1999, appealing the discipline Claimant, included the following very serious procedural due process objection, reading in pertinent pan as follows (Emphasis added):




Neither in the denial letters on the proper-; nor in handling before this Board did Carrier even address the undisputed fact that Superintendent 1V orkman was a member of the three-man testing team and thus passed judgement on his own actions when he made the final determination that Claimant was guilty of failing the test and issued the disciplinary action against Claimant. That patent violation of the principles of fairness and impartiality in disciplinary investigations mandated by the System Agreement-Discipline Rule and the Upgrade Program requires summary reversal of the disciplinary action in this case. As this Beard had previously held, the LERB decision which held that this procedural violation was not fatal to an administrative determination concerning FRA license suspension has no collateral estorpel effect upon our arbitral determination under RLA Section 3 that Carrier violated the terms of a _ollectively bargained Agreement.









              Dated at Spencer, New York on NL larch 9, 2002 r


                                  ~'i r


                                        .lay' ~v.

        .( ~ ii ivt:!iii`.


Union Men?>!er Company Member

2