AWARD NO. 365
Case No. 365
Organization File No. F408525 l 7 Carrier File No. 2017-229039
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION,
) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
)
)
) CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
I. The Carrier's discipline (time served suspension) imposed upon Mr. J. Hedrick, by letter dated November 1, 20 l 7, in connection with allegations that he was in violation of Rules l00.l and l 04.7(a) wasarbitrary, unsupported, unwarranted and in violation of the Agreement (System File F408525 l 7/2017-229039 CSX).
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part l above, Claimant J. Hedrick shall now have all mention of this matter removed from his record, immedi ately returned to service with rightsand benefits unimpaired and compensated for all loss suffered, including but not limited to straight time, overtime, double-time, as well as healthcare, credit rating, investment, banking, mortgage/rentorother financial loss suffered as a consequence of the discipline."
FINDINGS:
The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, asamended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated March 20, 2008, this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.
On September 1, 2017 Claimant was assigned as a Trackman on the 5GC2 team, but was temporarily working with the 5GB8 team on the Allegheny Subdivision. On that day, Claimant had
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7163
Aw ARD No. 365
PAGE2
reported for work late. As the 5GC2 team had already left the yard, Claimant was instructed to go to Clinton Forge to work with the 5088 team. According to Claimant, he could not find the 5GB8 team at Clinton Forge, so he went home. In doing so, Claimant did not contact a supervisor to request permission to leave work.
As a result of this incident, Claimant was issued a letter on September 14,2017directing him to attend a formal investigation on September 28, 2017, at which he was charged with failing to follow instructions to meet up with his section after showing up late for work. He was alsocharged with leaving work and failing to notify his supervisor. The record reflects that Claimant was withheld from service on September 12, 2017, pending the results of the investigation. After a postponement, the investigation was conducted on October 12, 2017. By letter dated November 1, 2017, the Carrier notified Claimant that he was found in violation of the Carrier's Operating Rules l 00.1 and I 04.7(a), and was assessed discipline of time served, beginning September 14, 2017 and ending November 1, 2017. According to the Organization, Claimant received the discipline notice on November 9, 2017 and returned to work the following day.
The Organization has raised several objections in this case, which shall be addressed by the Board in no particular order. The Organization contends the Carrier did not comply with the Agreement's time limit regarding the issuance of discipline. It cites Rule 25, Section l(f), requiring that"Notice of discipline must be given within twenty (20) days following the close of the hearing." Many arbitral panels in this industry have recognized that a carrier has satisfied its obligation under such a provision when it places the notice in the mail. The Carrier cannot be responsible for any
PuBLIC LAw BOARD No. 7163
AWARD NO. 365
PAGE 3
h
h
delays that are beyond its control. We find, therefore, that the mailing of the notice on the 201 day
following the investigation was in compliance with Article 25, Section l(f).
TheOrganization also takes issue with the Carrier's finding that Claimant was in violation of Operating Rules 100.1 and I04.7, inasmuch as neither Rule was cited in the Notice of Investiga tion or mentioned in the investigation itself. First, we find that the Carrier is not required to cite rules that might have been violated in its charge, unless the Agreement specifically imposes such a requirement. The applicable Agreement in this case does not. It is sufficient that enough facts are cited in the charge to enable the employee to understand the scope of the investigation and prepare a defense. We find that the Notice oflnvestigation in this case satisfies that requirement. We agree, however, that the Carrier cannot make a finding that Claimant was in violation of Rule 100.l because that Rule was never referred to during the investigation. As the Rule is not in the record before the Board, we also cannot make a finding that Claimant violated it.
As for the reference to Rule 104.7, the Carrier submits that this was a typographical error and the discipline notice should have referred to Rule I04.6. That Rule was read three times during the investigation, the third time being during the questioning of Claimant. Rule I04.6 states:
Employees must report to work at designated time and place. Employees unable to work or who want time off must make the request:
I . To the proper authority, and
2. Sufficiently in advance to allow the vacancy to be filled.
When asked if he reported for work at the correct designated time and place, and if he notified anyone that he was leaving, Claimant responded that he did not. He further acknowledged that he violated the Rule by being fifteen minutes late for duty. Claimant should have understood that he
07/15/19