Be^Heen 10:15 p.m. and 1 1:1. . -t..`.Iana=e: of ~perat:ng~racttces(1`:IOP)M. W. Pattersen noticed that The t·Ho lcccmoeves -Here .-urn:-.-, and there was no one around. He boarded the lccomctives and noted :: ey were pr^periy tied down but found no tag explaining why the engines
COMPANY CASE N0.1274377 had been left running. The MOP also lea the engines running and departed the yard.
MOP Patterson then issued the following ?~otice of Charges against Claimant, under date of July 2, 2001:
Please report to -.he Conference Room L'PRR otfices, 1619 N Rivet Street Portland, Orgon at 6:00 p.m, P.T. on', hursday, Juiy 5,-001, ·,-or .nvesugarion and hearing To develop the facts and-determine your responsibility, if any, concerning fe llo~ng alleged charges: 'Male employed 3s F ngiriver on ·.he YPD6 ,--0 at approximately 10:15 p=- P. T ., on :une 30, 2001. near NIP 2.9, Albina Yard, Portand Subdivision T3?0, you allegedly failed :o shut ,'.own UP-i 301 and LT-1304 at the :3st cud of Tracks No. 16. Tats alleeed acnon indicates ecssthle ·noianon of Rule 31.1.', of the Union Pac:ne Railroad .Brake and Train zandling.'ules, andUnien?3c·:ac -RiikoadPortlandSuperintendentBulletinNo. 95 effective May 1, ?001. The formal investigation was adjourned at le .request of the Organization and rescheduled to beheld on Juiy 12, 2001.
In the meantime, however, MOP Patterson unilaterally removed Claimant from service, cffccnvc July 5, 2001. Despite timely objections by the Organization that this suspension pending investigation was unwarranted, prejudicial and violative of Claimant's rights under the System Aareement-Diso:pline Rule, Claimant remained suspended withour pay through and foiiowing'he investigation. ByletterofJUly20,200'.GeneralSuperintendentHuntnotinedClaimantthathewas found guilty of the Level 2 offenses with which he had been charged but that due to' is previously existing Level 4 status (which was then tinder appeal to arbitration), the instant Level 2 discipline was upgraded to a Level 5 and he was dismissed tom service, et:ective July 20, 2001. (It is noted that the Level i disciplinary action which had upgraded Claimant's pre-existing Level 3 disciplinary status to Level 4 starts, was reversed by this Board in Award No. 115].
The disciplinary action in he instant case also must be rescinded. MOP Patterson's suspension of Claimant ;r a charged T e v ei = offense (leaving the engines n:nning `h:_LCLt :asp.71-) was a fatal violation of Section 2 of t. a Systen A=-ement-Discipline Rule. See PL3 7577-9.