i'UBL.pCLAW BOARD NO. 57"l
 _ Case 'sacs. 'l
 Award No. I

























Tlx.`xrr(t_e's Charge under the labor agec:aaerrE.. it is acknowledged ! the retard, was bwtsed ,its the same seven affi da`, it.5 n'hich were the basis of the Naf.1 ~w.47~4Ex6· f.E3tF~i proceEad;ng..
It is ttlt? posttir>(s ryt the organization that Rule g (c) of the labor mnt
 was vi9late-d. That ru.io szr~ s:









It i: turther the pf»(t£on (if the Carrier that only one official had the. authority to make the t hd,trges, a certain Division Manager, and 'that the infor rF.ta60fl upon w fsAC994
 h lie ad;ttt Nv.ts provided to lncn ortgsterralxer 12., 1,, hy a member (if the Carrier's Labor Relations Department Staff. Thus, the Carrier contends. t-here was,-ompliance with rule 9tc ).

charging oficial to a ~rrtgle individual. It c.ont5~rrds that, by definition., officers.
 senior to him or her would have equal oar more authority, and that their 1raving
 information is sufficient to trigger the seven-day limit -







Them, .are references of canvarsaficjns with the highest airier official, though these are vague as to this Claimant.
Tn order to detertsiirte when the outside law firat was rtained, when and which Cr.rr;frr vic:ers krww oaf the information used in charging Clairriant in court and under the agrc-~went,. the Org4n.lration asked, by letwr:





o 5uch witnt>ss W4s c.sl&ed, other than the char gin:g officer, who iollowet the policy of saying he ~,%'ax the person who would have the auth:orih tea "order
pLe tea .571
 ·n,.) D Pr) . I

an investigation", and that he res,eive-,d the information two da" ~*.ftire ewe ~'`~ ND I
 cbarge here ronsidered was ma.dr.
 Thus, the record is silentas to all information concerning tberel4too*hip
 fVtweim dte Carrier and dge retained hzwv firm, and involvement of the Carrier's
 special agents or police, We do not know who retained the law firm for the pur
 pose of working an the law sczit; or when; who arcamuhstett the affidavits;; what
 officials were izrualw%l «zy.d when. We are aware that the attoriiev·shent privi
 lege might have. been inuoi.ed etrt these questnsi~
 flDwever, for Purpases itc:·re; it is obvious that the cwe was prep&rbe
 fore August _''9. Since the same c·vide-nce Nvas eased, in the Wisconsin court and
 lx=fart this &)ard,, the Lyviderxv> must ha'm been ac~cu.z.zEU:latcl lxfore the date of
 filing. While .it is reasnnatrle ho a"rrrfte= t$?ak tiw i".'a.raier runs awarrr; of an-going
 evidemee collectiora:wfore the elate of filing the law suit itcertainlv wits aware of
 ail of the ink8'rrrta.t50fi 0·h. and. after Augnst :24.
 `lie charging officer testifiM clunng the labar agrwment investigaticn
 l"1(? explained that when h('. rel6ved the infarmatton, m final typed t4orfn On
 Scgttzrrcte ~ I
 l?, and prcvded ei.'~laraatt~ai~.E esnct ioterpretations about certain
 laolici~t~s and rtzlr.5 e_ tta~· %:.'<krri<~r invol.e·~el lx=re?. He characterized. the charge-5 as
 having a ": orn.mon denominator" L'f 417arammvnt~ :'Cfiual harassment aanct at
 tempted intimidation., Tiw charging nffis'er Appeared on the sernnd day of the
 heariz.~,g «nd hzs tehun,ony continues for IS pagans of the nran-script.,
 1·ollo%ving s.1w invesfgat'Lon, the Charging office'r:imuecl: by letter of C3ctty
 tier fi, 1994, the cli wipline.
 ThA' dismissal letter repeated the identicaf charges c:onti-rizttxl in the letter
 establishing ilxe invesii:ggtion, it a1su included the statement that Claimant's ac
 tivities in regaxrd to the 0ri~-ee had Caused him to he arrested be the lit, of !N3il
 waukow Police Departtnen't, and that kvas a! tmssis for Ow discipline. However,
 the rep orrshosws that he w.s .riot so arrested,
 W'e cone;aud.a that the first time "a Carrier officer hating <rarthority to order
 an investigation' rv~-iv°ed 4iforrnation of kkw offense here charged could nit
 possibly 1e later than tl* filing of the court dw:utrent in Milwaukee ctn August
 2,9.. 7"Pa. We do not tHieve Rule 9 (c) liirnits the authority to charge a single
 official.

      For lay k of testimony we simply dry not know specific ally ':; henofficars

knew of the information alleged .igairst Claiinant~ lout we <,in W rerUirz,, bated on the f*as «f the. matter, that tape inforrriation vvas available on or before August 29 ti others within he Carrier i: c4dre wf offiwrs ~eniar to the Charging officer.
 The Carrier cannot setup Such a. barrier as to thwart the intent of prompt n.w o/VO .
 action which Rule 9 _cl r,uires. Tf ttv--rule allowr3 ,one person only to tae des
 - ignatr~i as the operative partv~ and abso-(ved all otters, the Carraer could prvtt
 th4t person. from kmavviedge cm any rraatter and disabls the intent of time limit
 provisions.
 There .is in the rAilrcmd inclustn· a presumption that investigations held
 under ttte dasciplne p rc;`vessc~ia.s of the Various *tsrraements will ~.?>e 'fair and im
 partial,' It hits be-ert #teid that tai:rrie>ss amf ire p:Ardality are aunt when i4 sw&6?
    `~`~ evm'..'.'( `;~_ +6.. v".;,.vt <' c t~nr-o ~~ f lyc> Rb~.,.~ih· Y,. ~`+~c>rna. ~ wr~y~ar F~_c4s

    ·,., .uY~ i VrA eat UYV Y1y f1J 4~,. r. v. _ a,.

    individual should or should not b< charged. procod~ to charge, appears and tosaffiees .rs tea fwts 414 iss~rr, rt~xpnods to queshnns surrounding the incident and. tin.xH4°. m4fces the cIeCisWn as to sui_t or innocence, He can not :indict. te.tifttA, decide;


4N'N find teat the Carrier tailed on the procedural steps of w:'lirh the Orgdnization complains. The abridgments of the Agreement ins: fairn=ess are sufficiently flagrant to cause the daseiphne to 1e reversed without canridenng the further merits of the, matter.

    Findings:


    That the Agrcaement was violated. Award:


      Claim sustained.


      Dated this 23rd ctav of tuner 1, at hlirtneap©lis, AKIN.

C=arrier is directed tee rnale thus Award effective ate or before 30 days from date.

                    >5htt ~, C_-riswellA ,T~1e .viral 'sie~tb~ee


                              -Carrier Member


                    Eugen I',VonEssen. Organization N9eml*r