Award No. 529 " Uase' No. SLy

..... .. PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO; 5383

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS )
)
VS. ) Parties to Dispute
)
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY )
STATEt·7ENT OF CLAIM: .

Claim in behalf of Engineer W. W. Hoppenrath, Union Pacific Railroad former Chicago and North Western Transportation Company, for compensation for five (5) days suspension, time spent at the investigation, seniority and vacation rights

unimpaired and that this incident be removed'

from Claimant's personal record when he was

investigated on the following charge:

Your responsibility for your failure to properly protect your assignment when you failed to report at the designated starting time for Engineer assignment, Crew #2, Job 7302, on duty West Chicago, on December 9, 1994, which resulted in a delay to Train #10 on December 9 1994."

FINDINGS

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board

finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within

PG8 ..v~ . 53~ `A,

the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the

Board is duly constituted by agreement and has jurisdiction of

the parties and of the subject matter..

Claimant Engineer was found responsible for failure to

. protect incident to reporting late for his assignment. He was disciplined with five (5) days suspension.

It is not disputed that Claimant reported late and

caused a few minutes delay. The difficulty with assessing
i
discipline here, however, is to be found in the C&NW Discipline
System. A similar dispute was adjudicated by the First
Division which held, in part, as follows in Award 24210:
"Since the effective date of the Discipline
Policy, Claimant had receive two Letters
of Review, which are not considered
s discipline, but had not received a Letter
of Warring. Thus, he had not been put on
notice that he was subject to the discipline
system, as provided in paragraph (a) above.
Furthermore, we cannot find that Claimant's
conduct meets the standards set forth in
paragraph (b), which would permit the Carrier .
to assess a five day suspdnsion upon an
employee who had not already received a
Letter of Warning. While his conduct may
have been negligent, it was not of such a
serious nature that it would warrant
discipline under this provision."

~G.3 Nc~. 5323

In the instant case we note that Claimant's service record is far from exemplary, but he has received only "Letters of Review' and no "Letter of Warning" since the C&NW Discipline System became effective. Under the premise of the above

Award; the suspension shall be set aside and he shall be. .
issued a "Letter of Warning" in lieu thereof. Claimant shall
also be compensated for all time lost.
AVVkPz

Claim is sustained to the extent indicated above.

. ORDER

The Carrier is ordered to make this Award effective. within thirty (30) days from the date shown below.

r.

A. j ~~ /7~ 7
Employee Member r 'E-arr,&~6r Me b&

Chairman and eutral Member

Dated: