PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4450
AWARD NO. 90
NNIB CASE NO. 90
UNION CASE NO. 0223=*D
COINIPAIv-Y CASE NO. 9400730
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE
:
L-INION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO-MPAN-P
(Western Region)
-and
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
: Appealing the UPGRADE Level 2 Discipline of Engineer D. R.
Hemmer and request the expungement of discipline assessed and pay for all lost time with all
seniority and vacation rights restored unimpaired. Action taken as a result of investigation held
October 10, 1991.
OP1N'ION OF BOARD
: On August 17, 1993, Engineer D. R. Hemmer ("Claimant") was the
Engineer on the NTIQIV-15 when the inside switch at the west end of Radum, California was run
through during switching operations. By letter of August 18, 1993, Carrier ordered the Claimant
to report to the Superintendent's Conference room, 833 East 8`° street Stockton California at 10:00
!A-M on August 21 " for formal investigation and hearing. With mutual consent, the hearing was
postponed until September 30, 1993 at 9:00 AM where it was held and completed. In the letter of
October 19, 199=, the Carrier advised Claimant he had been assessed Upgrade Discipline level ?,
even though it is undisputed that the Waiver Form, which Claimant declined to sign, had proposed
only a Level 1 LPGR_4DE discipline for Claimant's alleged violation of Rules 104A, 105, 106 and
~i'e shall sustain this claim due :o fatal procedural violations by Carrier's local managers, or.
the 2rounes set '0r-in in the Oraaniza:ion's initial appeal of the Level 2 disciplinary action:
e
f
PLB
ND. 44Sa
AWARD NO. 90
' NMB CASE NO. 90
UNION CASE NO. 02234D
COMPANY CASE NO. 9400730
2
Under the Upgrade discipline polin, the manager who calls the investigation will
not conduct the investigation. In revieiring the transcript, it revealed the [sic] not
onlv did Mr. Smith, manager terminal operations Stock-on, call for this investigation
he conducted it as well, this according to the Upgrade discipline policy was and is
improper .
...it should be noted at this time that Alr. Hammer was offered a level (1J waver [sic]
prior to the investigation, which he elec:ed to have the investigation rather- than sign
for this level of discipline. According co the discipline policy, if the charges against
Nlr. Hammer were sustained, Mr. Herruner should have not received an v discipline
any higher than that offered. In Z cur letter you assessed .llr. Hammer a level (?).
7his is improper according to this pclic,..
AW_.aRD
1) Claim sustained.
2) Carrier shall implement this
Aw-a
within thirty (30) days of its execution by a
majority of the Board.
`Dana Ed%vard Eischen, Chairman
Dated at Sponcor, New York on
Mav 7.1999
° r
`i
I c
CUnon Mom _ -\
i
Company Member'