' NMB CASE NO. 138
UNION CASE 99070
COMPANY CASE 1203684
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4-150
PARTIES TO THE DISPT : T ':
L-N70NPACIFIC R T~.LROAD CONL°.-~N-C,Vesten Region)
-and-
BROTHER'-IOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE HNG--\,-zERS
ST STATE-.M-E'-\47 OF CT
Appealing the Up grade Level 3 Discipline assessed to EngineerR. D. Hoverson and
request the expungement of disc: :z:
!li- as
<-essed and pay for any and all time lost with
all seniority and vacation rivhts restcr°-d unimpaired. Action taken as a result of
formal investigation held on Oc:ccer --. 1999.
OPLN-ION OF BO ARD: MOP P. T. ~-;~:and sir: ed Claimant with a Notice of Investigation dated
October 1-1, 1999, stating, in pertinent pa.:
The purpose of this investigation is to
develop
:he facts and determine responsibility, if any, in
connection with while you were emp:c':ed s =:.ginger on the W-P-61, (RE31 Board) at
VIP 290
(LaGrande),Subdi·:isionsL~-Grande(=5,-)azcuntington(310)youallegedlyfailedtocomplywith
instrucdomdirectmgyoutommmiz°- a~s:nca omworkandmeettheemploytrentrequirementsof
your assiznment issued in conference ::_.h me on May 17, 1999, and subsequently confirmed with
letter dated May
13, 1999.
Your work'-;s;c; : =cm February
9, 1999
to Nlay
10, 1999,
and monthly
calendars "from May
I, 1999,
to April '::;
1999
were reviewed at this conference. In addition, your
alleged continued failure to protect empio%trent andcompiy with above instructions by excessively
absenting yourself from service as noted on ,cur work history between dates of June
29, 1999,
and
September
27, 1999,
while employed -s Engineer with the Union Pacific Railroad may indicate
possible violation of Rules 1.13 and
1.:5
of -u.e Union Pacific Rules, effective April
10, 1994,
and
Rule
1.15
of the Union 2acifc Revised S.: ste.-.. Special Instructions, effect 0001, October
25, 1998.
Following formal investigation. Carer found Claimant guilty as charged and assessed a
Level 1 Upgrade penalty but, since Claimant was already at Level ?, his discipline was "upgraded"
to Level 3 and he served a 5-day suspensicn wit-cut pay. Without addressing the merits of Carrier's
determination of Claimant's guilt, we re-: erse --is disciplinary action. The Organization made out
a prima facie showing that the Notice of Disc'iine of October 14, 1999 violated the 10-day notice
requirement of Section 3 of the System A==ement-Discipline Rule. Bare assertions that MOP
Variand was on vacation from October --"'J. 1999, did not effectively refute that showing and
Carrier declined repeated requests from : =e Cr_=zation to produce evidence of when, how and by
La No. V
Y,ro
AWARD NO. 138
NMB CASE NO. 138
UNION CASE 99070
COMPAi~TY CASE 1203684
whom the information regarding Claimant's alleged attendance irregularities was transmitted to
NIOP Varland.
A`V_ARD
1) Claim sustained.
2) Carrier shall implement this
Aw
and within thirty (_ 0) days of its execution by a
majority of the Board.
Dana Edward Eischen, Chairman
Ilk
Union
Dated at Spencer. New York on March 9, 2002
Company Member