"9660... concerning possible discrepancies in your expense accounts submitted for meals and lodging during months of December, 19'/0, January and February, 1971 9999.

'..~ Petitioner alleges that this charge did not specify which items

in the expense accounts were being questioned and further that in the

course of the investigation only the January and February expense

accounts were dealt with - and they contained well over 160 different

items. We have been concerned with the problem of preciseness of

charges on many occasions. In First Division Award 19699 we said:

" ,It must be inferred that the parties wished a charge

to be specific in order to make sure that any accused employe

would not come to the hearing unprepared to defend himself

and without opportunity to obtain witnesses who could testify

in his defense. A precise and definite charge insures this

desired result The real test of whether the wording

of a particular charge is sufficiently and reasonably precise

is whether, under the recorded circumstances of the individual

case, the accused could have had rational doubt as to what he

was being tried for."

The record of the instant dispute makes it abundantly clear that Claimant was aware of the expense account issues which were under investigation and that he was prepared to proceed at the time of the hearing. Hence we find that the charge in this matter was reasonably precise and made Claimant aware of the conduct being complained of. The ultimate test eras satisfied, that of preparation for defense; neither Claimant nor his obviously sophisticated representative requested a postponement or continuance in order to prepare a further defense.

Petitioner further contends that the procedure of the investigation was defective in that Carrier failed to provide, after written request by Claimant's representative, information prior to the hearing including a list of witnesses to be called, a copy of all documents to be introduced into the investigation and a description of any physical evidence to be presented and an opportunity to examine it.

We cannot find any rule in the applicable agreement which requires the production of the evidence requested by Claimant's representative. See Third Division Awards 13397, 13670 and 13571. We do not concur in the reasoning expressed in Third Division Award 17311, cited by Petitioner, in that although pre-hearing data may have been necessary in that dispute, it was neither required by Agreement nor was its absence prejudicial to Claimant in this matter.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division