AWARD NO. 148 NIQB CASE NO. 148 UNION CASE NO. 20152

COMPANY CASE NO. 1282940

PUBLIC LAW BOARD `(O. 4450

PARTL,FS TO TLE DISPtiE:

UN-ION PACIFIC R,?iLROAD COy.iPA (Western Region) - and - BROT'rERHCOD OF LOCOhi0 71E E`;GL\ERS ST ATE11ENT OF CLA:rI.

Appeal 11:e L-p-ode L~ro ei Discm::ne assessed to Engineer N. R. Flores andrequesr the removal of discipline assessed and pay for any and all time lost with all semoriry, vacation, and all other :igia~ ~estcr:d _:-i~tpaired.

OPEN ION OF 30, RD : Fo llowing a.-1 inv estieat_on conducted on September '_0, 2001 and October
9, 2001, Engineer`. R :'.ores ("Claim ant'~ws found wiity by Carrier ofdisbonesty and dismissed
him by letter of November .3, 2001. on --he Illoxing char;es:

While you

were empioved at En;meer on !L,e Y:

.472

at approvrmstely

5:45

a.m., ?. T ., September

5, 2001,

near

fit? 14°,

Fife, Seattle Sucdivtsion'*860, you absented yourself from Company property without autheriry subsectreatir ac-=g adcinonai Punitive wages for which no services wererendered after approximately 5:00 a.m., ?.:.. lea prcpery at 5:45 a.a, P.T.. and telephoned de-uo in at 7:35 a.m.,

P.T. to

ce·H

g et.

Your

accoos were in violation of Rule 1.5 of the Union Pacific Rules effective

April 2, 2C00.

This is

a Level rules viclacon.

our

c·.

-ent disc;phne status of Level 0, plus this Level 5 violation

results in assessment at

this nrne :f ; _ discipline

. Upgrade Level 5 discipline is as follows:

Pe:manent d:ssassal.

During claims handling, without preudice to either Party, Claimant accented Carrier's offer
of reinstatement to a Level 3 Upzsde starts. with the reserred tight to "appeal claims .-cr'ost time
from the date removed --cm serrics=rl ,= date of ~`ta Superintendent's offer of reinstatement,

AWARD NO. 148

NMB CASE NO. 148

UNION CASE NO. 20152

COMPANY CASE NO. 1282940 which was previously rejected".

The disciplinary action in this case must be revered on both procedural and substantive grounds. VITO Smith, the Charging Officsr, conceded that he failed to consult with anyone froth Senior Union Pac:%c Management prior :o bringing the Rule 1.5 L:vel 5 charges against Claimant. This was a plain violation of :t=m =10 of the Union Pacific UPGRADE Discipline Policy, which

reads in pertinent par as ;oiiows:

Regional vice -?mideat. satuvalenr sensor mInager, or their designated representative

·.vi:,l

be consulted betbro an e^oioyee

charged

ArIrh

a Level = otFense, other than pule 1.3. Dismissal 'or Level

offenses, Tcc ept Ru:e i ._ w

i::

be oniv ~..th :he concurrence of the vice president or e4uivalenr.

In addition, Claimant and the ot`er accused employees testified without contradiction that
claiming overtime was a quid pro quo For working through their meal periods was a prior
arrangement established by W!O Nibblick and MYO Whiteman, Carrier officers who preceded
NIT O Smith as their sup=: P:sors. Cane- declined to provide these former supervisors to testify at
the investigation, despite the requests of the Organization that they be called as witnesses.
Consequently, Claimant's testimony stands unrefsted that these Carrier offcers cad not only
condoncd but authorized the practice of overtime pay for employees who "ran the beans", behavior
which MTO Smith characterized as dishonest after he took over supervision of the ope^atien. Based
on all of the foregoing -his Board concludes :hat Carrier must rescind the Level 3 discipline and
reimburse Claimant :cr ' test t:rne from the date removed from >e:vics until the date of the
Superintendent's orT=r of :e?raatem~t. which was pr_Pviously rejected".

2

AWARD NO. 148

NMH CASE NO. 148

UNION CASE NO. 20152

COMPANY CASE NO. 1282940

AWARD

1) Claim sustained, as indicated in the Opinion of the Board.

2) Carrier shall implement this :ward within thirty

(.'1,0)

days of its execution by a majority of the Board.

Dana °cward E:scher, Chairman

_ .fir

Union Member Company Member

3