PARTIES Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
 to and
 DISPUTE: Union Pacific Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: -





FINDINGS: The dismissal of the Claimant arose because of events which -
 took place on March 1, 1997. On that date, the north main track switch
 at Callahan, Texas had not been properly lined and locked. This re- -
 sulted in a train leaving the main line, going into a siding for ap
 proximately twelve (12) car lenghts. No derailment or injuries resulted
 because of the incident.
 The Claimant and the Conductor were directed to attend·an investigation "to develop the facts and place your individual responsibility, if any, in connection with your leaving the north main track switch Callahan, Texas, improperly lined and locked at approximately 9:30 p.m., Saturday, March 1, 1997 while working as crew members on train LDASO1."
 The Claimant was found guilty of violating Rules 8.3 and 1.6 and - he was assessed a Level S discipline.
 The Board, after a careful review of the record, finds that the claim must be sustained because the Claimant did not receive a fair and impartial hearing.
 The course of the disciplinary proceedings is under the control - and direction of the Carrier. The language of the Parties' Agreement, when it addresses matters related to the Employer/Employee relationship, makes it clear that the notion of fairness is fundamental to that relationship. Indeed, for example, the Discipline Rule provides that an employee "will not be discipline without first being given a fair and - impartial investigation." :'his provision advances the basic principle that the Carrier will deal with its employees in an impartial fashion in accordance with the commonly accepted standards of fairness.
 PLB No. 5942 C-43/A-43 A&_0 VQ, ~(3
 Page 2

 One of the recruirements for a fair and impartial hearing is to take all reasonable steps necessary to establish relevant facts. In this case, both the Conductor and the Claimant, repeatedly testified that
 a third party, Conductor Courbier, assumed responsibility for the -
 "north switch." Both Union representatives repeatedly asked to have
 Conductor Courbiew present to testify. Clearly, Conductor Courbier
 could have offered relevant testimony. The failure of the Hearing
 officer to call Conductor Courbier also lends further substance to
 the organization's claim of pre-judgment.
 In summary, while the Board is not unmindful of the Carrier's position in its brief and in its arguments before the Board at this hearing, these arguments cannot overcome the on the property proceedings that did not meet the standards of fairness and impartiality.The parties contracted to provide the employee the right to a fair and impartial trial before any disciplinary action could be taken. If that procedural safeguard can be circumvented by the kind of hearing process used here, the Parties' contract would have little substance. For any disciplinary action to have a legitimate foundation, a "fair" and "impartial" trial, as provided by the Agreement,
 must occur. - -' -
 AKARD -

 The claim is sustained.
 v w-.~
 C. . Andrews
 Ja.m CCoy Ec a and Muessi C rier Member
 Organization Member Neutral Memb