8, 2001, was dismissed from Carrier's service and in the same packet was fumfshed a copy of the transcript
For sore reason, the first two letters of discipline were never received by the Claimant, but on the third attempt, was sent UPS next day service and was delivered to his residence on May 17, 2001.
Cutting through all the rhetoric and reaching the bare bones, Claimant did exactly as charged. He used a hacksaw to cut a hydraulic line that held a 4000 1b per square inch of pressure that was a part of a malfunctioning rail extender unit the welders were using in attempting to close a gap in the nil sufficiently to allow them to well the joint
Then an, however, extenuating circumstances that mitigate the discipline. It was established that no one at the score of the Incident had any training in the use of the rail extenders, and even though efforts ware made to get it working. they tried to change the hose hook ups, but one hose could not be changed because they could not loosen the nut attaching the home to the unit
Claimant, disregarding several coworkers advice advising him not to, secured his welding gloves, his face protector, got a hacksaw and cut into the One with 4000 The of pressure per square Inch. The force of the fluid penetrated his hand and he was hospitalaed for three days.
Claimant contends the gauge he looked at registered zero pressure where others sold i! registered 4000 Ibs. Claimant also stated he never heard anyone cautioning him about cutting the line, and this may be so as testimony from one witness stated Claimant is deaf in the left ear.
Claimant has been with the Carrier since April, 1978, and as far as the Board can tell, has been a welder all that time. He surely would not hacksaw one of the live feeds from the welling tanks, thus it is difficult to understand why he would cut Into a line that has been constructed to withstand up to 10,000 The per square inch pressure. What he did was not the smartest move he has ever made.
TM Organization raised a procedural challenge to the whole disciplinary process by first contending in its letter of June 8, 2001, neither Claimant nor they had been tknaty furnished a copy of the disciplinary notice and s copy of the transcript
Carrier furnished proof that Claimant received both on May 17, 2001, which was timely, and the Organization received their copy when they received Carriers letter of August 15, 2001, responding to their June 18, 2001, appeal of the discipline.
The Organization Is entitled to a Copy of the Investigation. R is true the Discipline Rule does not provide for the Organization to also receive a copy of the disciplinary letter, but it just makes good sense to furnish a copy of that notice letter with the transcript
The Organization cited Third Division Award 31802 in support of their procedural argument, but that Involves a separate Disciplinary Rule than we are hers concerned. Nevertheless, the existing Agreement does obligate the Carrier to fumish the Organization with a copy of the transcript That should be dons when Claimant is mailed his copy. Repeated failures to comply can place the Carrier at risk of having a discipline overturned.
Claimant, to reiterate, has been with the Carrier since April, 1970, with only two disciplinary infractions; one, dismissed in 1991 from which he was obviously reinstated,
PLA ft.51350and a 1096 progressive Intervention assessment What Claimant did was thoughtless and dangerous, but he was the only one who suffered. He has not worked since (larch 6, 2001. The dismissal b reduced to along suspension. His seniority is to be reinstated, but then Is no pay for time lost.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Clalmartt(s) be made. The Carrier Is ordered to make the award effective on or before 20 days following the data the award b adopted.