i That the Carrier's decision to issue Machine Operator J. t=. Medeiras a Lava! S Record Suspension far fifteen (15) days and two-year probation was unjust
2. That the Carrier now rescinds their decision and expunge all discipline, and transcripts and pay far all wage toss as a result of an Investigation held at 1300 hours an March 9, 2001 continulng forward and/or otherwise made whole, because the Carrier did not Introduce substantial, credible evidence that prayed that the Claimant violated the rules enumerated to their decision, and even If the Claimant violated the rules enumerated In the decision, a retard suspension Is extreme and harsh discipline under the circumstances.
3. That the Carrier violated the Agreement particularly but net limited to Rule 13 and Appendix 11, because a Carrier did not Introduce substantial, credible evidence that prayed the Claimant rtatatad the rules enumerated in their decision.
Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute ware given due notice of the hearing thereon.
1111alntttinOr concerning Claimant's Machine determined that it had not been grossed, the baits had not been tightened, and the U joints were dry. It also was discovered that the last entry in the machine log book was January 18, 2001.
An Investigation was scheduled that was finally held on March S, 2001, and an April 6, 2001, Claimant was advised that he was assessed "a level S record suspension of 16 days ...."
The Gamier sustained its burden of proof by furnishing substantial evidence of Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed.
Part of that defense was that Claimant was off on vacation for flue weeks returning on January 2, 2001, but this does not excuse the condition of the machine as found by the Equipment Maintainer on February ii.
It was alga brought forth that the machine created lots of dust in its operation and perhaps that was why it was dry, but the fact that it raises a dust storm is even more reason that the machines should be kept greased and oiled. Also, sometime between January 2, 2001, and February 9, 3001, the baits should have bean chocked and lightened if lease, but obviously none of this occurred.
Furthermore, pursuant to the Rule, Claimant is obligated to keep a ion of grease, oil andior loess bolts that were tightened, but Claimant did not lee:p the machine toy up to data.
The feet that Claimant may soon retire does not negate the discipline assessed as his record contains an entry of discipline assessed in the summer of 1888, for the very same reason as in this instance.
Pale 3
