Parties to Dispute: (Carmen)


                      Lehigh Valley Railroad Company


    Dispute: Claim of Employes: -


              1. That the Carrier violated the current agreement in refusing to compensate Carmen John R. Shoop., H. Mosley and H. Jabcuga for four (4) hours at the straight time rate of pay respectively for service during their off duty hours on Thursdays February 25, 1971.


          2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate the above

              named claimants on the call rule basis, four (4) hours at the I

              straight time rate of pay, each respectively, on account of this

( violation.

    ?ind s:


    The Second Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:


    The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193$.


          This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute

    involved herein.'


    Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

    Claimants were given notice by Carrier to report for a hearing and

    investigation which it conducted to determine their responsibility, if any, for

    a mishap which occurred on February 9, 1971. The hearing was convened on Thurs

    day, February 25, 1971 at 1:00 P.M. and concluded at 2:45 P.M. Claimants' work

    schedules for the day of the hearing were for hours which did not include the

    time of the hearing. Following-the hearing,.Carrier decided not to take disci

    plinary action against the claimants. They then each filed a claim for four

    hours straight time pay because the hearing took place during their off duty hours

    and invaded their rest time.


    i

t Petitioner invokes Rule 8 paragraph 4 of the controlling agreement in
 >upport of this grievance. Said rule reads as follows:

                                                                i

Form 1 Page 2
Award No. 6421
 Docket loo. 6~F"
 2-LV-M-·73 (,

 "4: Employes called or required to report for service and reporting will be allowed a minimum of four (4) hours for two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes or less, and will be required to render only such service as called for or other emergency service which may have developed after they were called and cannot be performed by the regular force in time to avoid delays to train movement."

 There is no dispute concerning the fact that a derailment occurred on February 9, 1971 and that same was attributable to a defective part on a freight car. The Carrier apparently considered imposing penalties upon any or all of the claimants if investigation indicated that faulty performance on their part was causually related to the costly misadventure. It proceeded in accordance with Rule 37 of the controlling agreement, the pertinent provisions of which are:

 "No employe shall be disciplined without a fair hearing by designated officers of the carrier . ... At a reasonable time prior to the hearing, such employe and his duly authorized representative will be apprised.-of the precise charge and given reasonable opportunity to secure the presence of necessary witnesses. If it is found that an employe has been unjustly suspended or dismissed from the service, such employe shall be reinstated with his seniority rights unimpaired, and compensated for the wage loss, if any, resulting from said suspension or dismissal, less amount earned in other employment."

 This Rule limits management's disciplining of employees. It deters summary action and affords workers believed to have been malfeasant or misfeasant an opportunity to defend themselves against charges and is clearly beneficial to them. It is noted that nowhere in this Rule or in any other rule is the time when the hearing shall take place specified nor is compensation for participating therein by those under investigation provided. It is by now well established that appearance at hearings pursuant to rules comparable to Rule 37 does not constitute "service" as contemplated in Rule 8.4 (Awards 1632, 3484, 3492, 3638, 3926, 5870, 5871, 5872). There being no rule in the controlling agreement providing a right to the compensation claimed, we are not empowered to grant same.

 A WAR D
Claim denied.
 - ; Form 1
                                                Award No. 6421

    Page 3 Docket No. 6267

    2-LV-CM-'73

    NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

    By Order of Second Division


                                                                  I


    Attest: j

              Executive Secretary


    Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 3rd day of January, 1973.


l