I request that _'~vIr. Porter. T.D 16 7006, be paid f or time lost as a result of being taken out of service on Seatember 27, 1990 :or thirty (30) days as a result of _he investigation at Andrews, SC on October 5, 1990 in the fore of discipline for derailment at Andrews on 9/27!90. Also 26 cents a mile standard auto allowance for the IdO miles he made to Andrews from his home and back (70 miles round trip), in two trips; one to get his letter of discipline from the trainmaster and one for the investieation. Mr. Porter stood to work a six day road switcher which totals ?6 days at $131.=t1. Total claim is for $3,453.06 dollars. OPTVTON OF BOARD As a result of charges dated September 28, 1990, investigation held October 5, 1990, and by letter dated October '7, 1990, Claimant was assessed a 30 day suspension resulting from a derailment at Andrews Yard on September 27, 1990.
Claimant was not mailed the notice of investigation by certified mail. Instead, Claimant was cared by Trainmaster B. Sarvis on Cc;ober 1,
1990 and was told (or advised) to pick up a letter. Claimant drove to Andrews Yard and picked up the letter, which turned out to be the charges. l
We are unable to address the mers of the discipline in this case. The notification of charges was procedurally defective.
Article 31, Section (B)(1)(a) of the November 18, 1981 Memorandum
An employee directed to attend a formal hearing to determine the employee's responsibility, if any, in connection with an occurrence or incident shall be nodfied in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last !crown address within a reasonable period of time but not to exceed ten (10) days from the date of occurrence, or where the occurrence is of a nature not immediately known to the employee's supervisor(s), from the time they first have ktowiedge thereof. The notice shall contain a clear and sreciric statement of the dace, Lime, place and nature of the occurrence or incident that s to be the subject of the hearing. The notice shall be sent in duplicate in order that the employee may transmit a copy to the employer's representative, if the employee so desires.
1 At the invest;gaticn. Caimant refused to acknowledge that he was properly served Tr. -.
Thus, the employee can be notified of charges by certified mail. Claimant was not so notified. The employee can also be notified of char-,As by de:ive^! Or the charges by a Carrier represe nratve at a reasonable time. Wiizh resoec: :o the Carrier's delivery of the charges, ~._:e is nothing in the rule or in the f aea presented by this case that al_ows the Carrier, as here, to cause the e:r:plovee to drive back to the proper-,j and pick up the letter. That action was unreasonable.
With respect to the remedy, because the notification of the charges ;vas procedurally defective, the 30 day suspension shall be rescinded. Claimant shall be made whole for all lost wanes and entitlements. The other relief sou=ht by Claimant is not supported by the Agreement and will not be allowed.