Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the Pardee herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
GlaknaM at the time of the Investigation was a Welder for the Carrier and had been since July of 2003.
On June 28, 2005, the Carrier wrote Claimant advising him that an Investigation was scheduled for the alleged procedural violations for work performed:
Claimant testified he knew the conditions he left the frog in on June 3, 2008 (not June 7 6 8, 2006), as he could not finch the work in one day. Claimant stated he left the frog in a condition that permitted nomiai train operations and this fact has bean verified as no slow orders ware Issued.
Claimant stated he had the intention of returning the next day to finish the weld job, but he was assigned other work. He finally did return and finish the weld but the notice of the Investigation was already issued.
In matters of discipline, the burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the Carrier. The only proof established was that Claimant did work on June 3, 2006, leaving the, frog in condition permitting normal train operations. When Claimant did finish the weld, other Supervisors ware satisfied with the work.
In this Board's opinion, the disqualification as a Welder was an ovenroactkan. Surely others noted the unfinished weld after June 3 but before June 7, but said nothing to anyone leaving this Board to believe although the work was not completed, It was a satisfactory temporary solution.
The claim is sustained. Claimant is to be paid the difference between what he could have earned had M not bean disqualified and what he actually earned from the data of disqualification until his Welder status is reinstated.