PREPARE WRITTEN PROTESTS AND QUESTIONS

   The representative approaches the practice of preparing written protests and questions as being not quite cricket, as a conductor who looks furtively at a switch list so the rest of the crew won't know his source of knowledge.

   If a defense is worth preparing, it should not await the uncertainties of the hearing, but should be outlined in advance. In important hearings and on important protests it is wise to have the exact language of your documented protest entered into the record just as you have composed it, by handing a copy to the stenographer at the beginning of the investigation.

   Questions to be asked of each principal and witness may be listed under his name, and during the course of the hearing additional questions may be added.

   We offer as a case study a recent investigation wherein four objections were placed in the record in this manner:

   1. We find, not present, three witnesses who we feel will be necessary to develop the full facts about the matter under investigation. These are: Yardmaster S., Towerman J. , and Head Switchtender Q. It may develop that one or more of these witnesses are not essential if there are no disputed facts, but we ask, to insure a full investigation, that these three men be called to attend this investigation, and that we continue the investigation and be allowed to question these three men when they arrive, upon facts in dispute.

   2. We call now to your attention the July 1, 1950 schedule between the Engineers and our Company. Article 33 (a) first sentence reading, "Engineers will not be disciplined or discharged until they have been given a fair and impartial investigation. "[We then argued that this rule prohibited men from being removed from service before such a hearing, and that his procedural defect invalidated the hearing.]

   3. We now ask Mr. E., our hearing officer, if on Friday night, June 18th, about 10:15 p.m., Trainmaster H. called you at your home, and upon your request to learn all the facts, Mr. H. so explained them, and you then advised him the engineer and fireman were insubordinate and to remove them from the engine, or words to that effect?

   Mr. E., we ask that you disqualify yourself as Hearing Officer. [As a result of arguing this protest, the Hearing Officer made the following prejudicial statements confirming our accusation of prejudgment: ". ..inasmuch as both engineer and fireman had refused to obey his orders they were to be removed from the engine";..."to work men who refuse to do what they are instructed to do by their superiors"; and "I am basing my statement on what I have been told by witnesses at the time of the occurrence."]

   4. With regard to the charges, we regard as a minor defect that the person or persons to whom the engine crew were allegedly insubordinate -- "the switch crew," "Yardmaster," and "Trainmaster" -- were not mentioned by name. We have had difficulty -- in fact we have not succeeded -- in preparing a defense for this reason. This defect may remedy itself as the investigation progresses, and for this reason we ask that the witnesses developing the charges give their testimony first, as is customary in our courts, so that we may consider a defense.

   This case was settled solely on the evidence without appeal on these protests, and we are happy to state the engine crew was reinstated with pay. (One of the chairmen whose name appears on this book's title page appeared as defendant and the other chairman served as representative.)