In accordance with the provisions of Rule 25, Section 3, of the June 1, 1999 Agreement, the following will serve as our appeal of the discipline assessed to BMWE employee M.A. Kilburn IDiV* * * * *, as a result of the hearing held on August 25, 2005.
For the reasons stated, as well as our numerous objections at the hearing, it is respectfully [requested] (sic) that the charge letter and all matters relative thereto be removed from Mr. Kilburn's personal file and he be returned to the Rail Welding Plant as a Welder Operator, and he be made whole for all losses suffered as a result of the Carrier's actions.
M.A. Kilburn ("Claimant") was hired by Carrier's Engineering Department on July 8, 2002. The record demonstrates that Claimant was awarded the position of Welder on the 5X55 Welding Team at the Nashville Welding Plant in Nashville, TN. As required by the Agreement, Claimant was permitted the requisite sixty (60) day training period to become proficient on the newly awarded Welder's position. However, after sixty-one (61) days on the position, Carrier determined that the Claimant was "unable to master welding', and, on July 28, 2005, Claimant received confirmation of his disqualification effective at the close of business on the same date. In the letter the Claimant was instructed to attend an August 11, 2005 "show cause hearing" relative to his disqualification.
COMPANY CASE No.12(OS-1116 Following one (1) postponement, the hearing convened on August 25, 2005, with both Claimant and his representative in attendance. By letter dated September 1 4, 2005, the Claimant's disqualification as a Welder Operator was confirmed
In an appeal protesting the Claimant's disqualification, the Organization alleged that the disqualification was: "Discipline assessed to BMWB employee Kilburn. .. ". Specifically, the Vice Chairman alleged that: "In accordance with Appendix F(10), Mr. Kilburn was not given reasonable time or training in which to become a qualified Welder Operator". In its denial of the appeal, Carrier noted that disqualification is "separate and distinctfi·om disciplinary procedures ", further arguing that: "All proper procedures were followed and the disqualification was demonstrated to be made with just cause".
The record demonstrates that the Claimant was provided the required sixty (60) day qualification as provided for under Appendix F, Item 10 of the June 1, 1999 BMWE/CSXT System Agreement. In that connection, Claimant's Welding Instructor, R.P. Roper, stated, unequivocally, that Claimant was "not meeting the qualifications to become a welder". Mr . Roper went on to state that in his fifteen (15 ) years of experience, he "never" based his disqualification on production, however, Mr. Roper maintained that: "Claimant Kilburn was unable to produce welds properly to add to the efficiency of the welding plant". Specifically, the Welding Instructor reported that the Claimant was on the welding machine, by himself, for approximately twenty-one (21) days and was "Unable to meet the performance expectations of a welder...".
Manager of Welding Plants Vaught testified that the Claimant: " ....had I S re-welds during the last nine days prior to his disqualification, which averages 2 per day... ". Finally, Foreman Norcross (who has been at the Nashville Welding Plant for approximately 21 years) assisted the -2-
COMPANY CASE No. 12(OS-1 I 16 Claimant's training by making adjustments on the machine and checking re-welds. According to Foreman Norcross, the Claimant's performance was "sub-par" because of "the quality of the re-
It has long been held in this industry that a Carrier possesses the right set reasonable standards that an employee must meet to be placed on a job. Further, Carrier has the right to make determinations about employee qualifications to ensure that work is performed both safely and -3- AWARD No. 19