Public Law Board No. 7(}48. upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds that Frnployee find (`arrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended: and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein: anti that the parties to the dispute have participated in accordance to the Agreement that estahlished the Board.
On February ?3, 2(?1 1, Claimant was directed to attend a formal Investigation on March -t. ?011, which was mutually postponed until March 11, 201 1. concerning in pertinent part the following charge:
(>n April 19, 2011, Claimant was nutitied that he had been tOund guilty as charged and was assessed a Level S 3(l-Day Record Suspension with a three year probationary period.
It is the Organ izatiun's position that after the; discrepancy was; discovered Claimant was repeatedly coached and counseled regarding the importance of yentering correct intOrmatiun in the computer. It argued that was a form of discipline: without benefit of representation. It t`urther argued that if the Claimant had been guilty of anything in this instance:. which he was nut, tile discipline assessed was excessive. It concluded by requesting that tile discipline: he rescinded and the claim sustained as presented.
It i, the position of the Carrier the Claimant violated the alorclnentiuncd Rules when he Ilulcd to provide track inspection defect reports in excess of a two month period while working ,is a (rack Supervisor. It ars,'ued that heeause the Claimant failed to submit any reports on his territory the Carrier was tined by the FRA for ! 5 code I % iolatiunw it was unaware of which was a serious offense. It closed by asking that the discipline not be disturbed and tile claim remain denied.
1`he Board has thoroughly reviewed the transcript anti record ut etidence and will first address the Organ ization's argument that the Claimant was disciplined when he was allegedly coached and counseled prior to the Investigation regarding the: charges tinder InvestIigation. Contrary to tile C)rganiz;ttion's assertion countless Boards have determined that "coaching and counseling" is nut discipline and it will not be used in the assessment ofdisciplinc. The fact that the Claimant was coached and counseled in the past dues nut mean that he has already been disciplined. It is determined that the Investigation and appeal process met the guidelines ut~ Rule 1 ·(aj the Discipline Rule and Appendix No. 1 1.
On pages I? and 13 of the transcript the Claimant was questioned ct_s to whether or nut lie had properly reported track detects in a timely manner as fiflluws:
In his detense the Claimant suggested that the reason he did riot submit any track dcf'ects into HMS was because he had slat been properly trained oil hove t« input the intor-niation via Iris laptop computer, however. that argument is not persuasive especially in view- of the tact that the Claimant never stated tic: requested any training on input of track defects. Substantial eOdenec w=as addueed at the Investigation that the Claimant was ~nilty as charged.
f'lle only issue remaining, is whether the discipline was appropriate. At the time of the incident the Claimant had approximately 3? years of service with one serious Record Suspension a little; over one year prior to the incident under charge. The discipline assessed in this case will not be set aside as it was in accordance with the Carrier's Policy tier Employee Performance Accountability (tTPA) and it was not excessive, arbitrary or capricious. '1 'he claim will remain denied. I'.L.B. No. 7048
