i _ (Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.)






                      ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0. i

        Parties to Dismte: ( (Electrical Workers)


                      ( Burlington Northern Inc.


        Dispute: Claim of F=loYes:


              1. That in violation of the current agreement, the Carrier improperly denied Electrician C. Norder compensation for attending investigation held during regular workinghours in the ?,aster Aechanic's office at Cicero, Illinois on March 25, 1971.


              2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to additionally compensate the aforementioned Electrician in the amount of eight (8) hours at the straight time rate for arch 25, 1971.


        Findings;


        The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, 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, 1934.


        This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction ovor the die-, pute involved herein.


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


        Claimant attended a formal investigation as a witness for an employehe who had been charged with intoxication while on duty. The issue in the case appears to be whether or not the Claimant should be paid by.the Carrier for the time spent in the investigation.


              Rule 20 of the applicable agreement_statee:


              Attending investigations "Employees shall not be required to lose time from their regular assignments because of being renuired to attend investigations or report for physical,--examinations. So

Form 1 Award No. 6441
 Page 2 Docket No. 6259 i
 . - 2-HN-EW-'.33 . ---

        far ar is possible, investigations shall be donducted during regular working hours."


        Both Claimant and the Carrier concur in the essential facts; was called by the defendent in the investigation as a witness, the

investigation took place during regular working hours, and Claimant did
 testify. The agreement provides in Rule 35 pertaining to investigations in
 part:

          "(c)At least five (5) days advance written notice of . .' the investigation shall be given ....in order that the employee may arrange for representation by a duly authorized representative and for presence of necessary witnesses he may desire ...."


The Carrier argues that since the Rule 20 language is clearly intended to pertain to witnesses required by the Carrier, it has no liability in this case. The Organization contends that the past practice of the Carrier supports their position, but presented no evidence on the property
 supporting this contention. None of the cases cited by either party with.
 respect to payment of Witnesses parallels this matter on both facts and the
 Rule. . _

 Under the Rules, Carrier has,-the obligation to conduct "fair and impartial" investigations in disciplinary situations. We believe the Carrier , has the right to assign its employees in the normal course of their employment to virtually any reasonable activity, whether attending a meeting, conference, investigation or merely sitting in an office, so long as the Carrier meets its obligations in compensating the employees in accordance with the terms of the agreement, and violates no other rules in its assignment. With this normal prerogative of the Carrier in mind it must be assumed that Rule 20 was drafted without the implied modification that employees " ....being required to attend investigations" may only be "required" by the Carrier. It is our opinion that Rule 20 would not be part of the agreement if it pertained only to witnesses __called_by the Carrier to participate in investigations, since it would not be needed.

 An examination of Rule 19 casts additional light on the matter. That Rule reads in part:

        "When employees are held from their regular service, or fur- `° laughed employees are called, to attend court as witnesses for the Company, they will be allowed compensation ...."


From this rule it would appear that the parties did not specify "required byibe Carrier" in Rule 20 deliberately, since Rule 19 indicates
        Form 1 Award No. 6441

        Page Docket No. 6259

t . _ 2-BN-EW- "j3

        that this language and intent was used elsewhere in the Agreement.


                              AWARD


              Claim sustained.


                                  NATIONAL RAILROAD ADQTUSTMNT BOARD By Order of Second Division


        Attest: G .d. l

              Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of January, 1973.


i
I