AWARDS 109 - EMPLOYEE SIGNS HEARING WAIVER THEN APPEALS DISCIPLINE ASSESSED TO BOARD -- DENIED

Second Division Award No. 12254 (Duffy)

"After a careful review of the record, the Board finds no evidence that any authorized official agreed to any conditions for the Claimant's future reinstatement. The record indicates that Claimant voluntarily signed the waiver and by doing so accepted the consequent discipline. Under Rule 26(g)(5) of the Agreement, discipline accepted in this manner is not subject to appeal, and the claim must therefore be dismissed."

Third Division Award No. 29493 (Suntrup)

"A complete review of the record shows that the facts as they are put forth by the Carrier are substantially correct. The Claimant did go to the Local Chairman of the Organization about the charge brought against him and the Local Chairman even consulted with the Local Grievance Committee of the Organization. The options were explained to the Claimant and he chose to sign the waiver. There is no evidence to support the contention by the Claimant that he was told that he would be removed from service if he did not sign the waiver. Both the Carrier and the Organization acted properly in this matter and the Claim must be denied. The Claimant freely signed a waiver after informing himself of his rights under the Agreement and such waiver is binding. There was no violation of Rules 53 or 54 of the Agreement."

First Division Award No. 24252 (LaRocco)

"Subsequent to signing the above quoted waiver of Investigation, Claimant asserted that he was either confused or had been misled about the consequences of signing the waiver. Claimant believed that if he signed the document, a fifteen day deferred suspension would be placed on his record. Stated differently, Claimant did not expect to be actually suspended from service.

"Claimant, who voluntarily signed the April 12, 1991 waiver of Investigation, could hardly misunderstand its terms. In clear, unequivocal language, the waiver provides that as a result of being assessed with a fifteen-day deferred suspension, Claimant must actually serve a forty-five day suspension because he had a prior thirty-day deferred suspension on his record. Since Claimant could not possibly misconstrue the total quantum of discipline being imposed on him, this Board must deny the claim."