Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


                    ( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company


      Dispute: Claim of Employe:::


            1. That the Missouri. Pacific Railroad Company unjustly withheld Carman T. W. Robertson from service starting March 1, 1974, and following investigation dismissed him from service effective March 19, 1974.


        2. That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be

. ordered to compensate Carman Robertson as follows:

                (a) Pay for all time lost covering period March 1, 1974 until returned to service with seniority rights unimpaired;


            (b) Made whole for all vacation rights;


                (c) Made whole for all health and welfare and insurance benefits;


                (d) Made whole for pension benefits including Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Insurance;


                (e) Made whole for any other benefits he would have earned during the time he was withheld from service.


                (f) In addition to the money amounts claimed herein Carrier - shall pay Carman Robertson an additional amount of 6% per annum compounded annually on the anniversary date of the claim.


    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 over the dispute involved herein.


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

    /"`", Form 1 Award No. 70 30

    Page 3 Docket No. 6942

    ... 2-MP-CM-'76


        on the matter. The Master Mechanic served as the Interrogating Officer for the investigation. The Claimant stated at the March 5th investigation that his last haircut was on February 28th. At the investigation, the Carrier took three pictures of the Claimant. These pictures are part of the record before us.


        The Organization contends among other things that the Claimant was unjustly withheld from service and unjustly dismissed from service following the investigation.


        The Carrier.contends that the Claimant was disciplined for his failure to comply.with instructions concerning his grooming within a reasonable time from the time he first received such instructions: that is, he was told by the notice on the bulletin board on November 5, 1973, what the standards were and did not comply until after he had been removed from service or, the Carrier contends, "accepting arguendo the Claimant's version, until the time of the investigation of Marchh 5, 197197.". (Carrier's Submission Pg. 7). It is the Carrier's view that Claimant did not even attempt to

        . get in compliance with instructions until cited for investigation. (Carrier's Submission pg. 8).


~r,~ We find that the above contentions by the Carrier are untenable. The
 a investigation of March 5th focused on the events of February 15th through
 March 5th. The letter from -the Master Mechanic to the Claimant warned the
 Claimant that the Claimant must comply with the applicable standards on
 length of hair by February 28 or it would be necessary for the railroad to
 take disciplinary action. (T:R 6). The investigation was held on March 5th
 to develop the facts and place responsibility for "having excessively long
 and unkeQt~ hair and repeated instructions from supervising officers and
 a more than a reasonable length of time to comply." (TR 1).
 The dismissal notice signed by C. Percy, Jr., found the Claimant
 guilty of the charges set out in the notice of investigation. (See
 Carrier's Exhibit 2). The instructions from supervising officers, referred
 to in both the notice of investigation and the dismissal notice, took place
 at the delivery of the February 15th letter and on February 28th. It could
 be said instructions were given on March 1st, as well. The "more than
 reasonable length of time to comply" referred to in both the above-mentioned
 documents was the period from receipt of the letter dated February 15, 1974
 and the required compliance date of February 28, 1974. It is untenable to
 argue to this Board that the Claimant was disciplined for failure to comply
 with the instructions within a reasonable time from the time he first
 became aware of the bulletin board notice of November 5, 1973. In no way
 was that the matter investigated on March 5, 1974.
 Further, the Carrier's factual assertions in the above contentions are
 contrary to the transcript. The Claimant had his hair cut on February 25.
 The Claimant was advised that it was not in conformity with the standards
 Form 1 Award No. 7030
 Page 5 Docket No. 6942
                                          2-MP-CM-'76


out of service, he subsequently had his hair trimmed to appear at his investigation. We find then that since his hair was in compliance with

 standards on March 5th, then it was also in compliance on March 1st. We find therefore that the Claimant should be paid for all time lost from March 1, 1974 through May 7, 1974. Claimant suffered no vacation loss: health and welfare benefits and interest payments are denied as per a long line of awards of this Board.

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained as per opinion.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 0000 Y

 semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of March, 1976.
              NATIONAL RAILR0~D ADJUSTJ`,YhIT BOARD Serial No. 79

              SECOND DIVISION


(The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee David h. Twomey when the interpretation was ,rendered.)

            I1`JTEf'ti.LrETATIOAT ?iV.'l rllv AWARD,`` `10U'r 7032


                    DOCKET - 6942


O?'._...._0Z`.r'k.~T7A-V..I0TT: System Federation Rio. 2, Railway Employes'
 Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. Q

              Caxren


PTA-MR~ OP CI~Ri? ~-R~ Missouri Facif is Railroad Corrp.ny

 QlruErim `j' 1~- ·T 'r'·_rrr~T ~1,~r~ ~ -~-n-,
    m.=LO i~t a~_._w_...._.T.~:


Did the Board intend that the words 7.17 the findings of ~il-:.:'~ l.o. 70:;0, reading C h follows,,:

        "We fina therefore that the Claimant should be laid for all time lost from t~l.:.'~.'ll l? 19'7-'1

'Iri:L'oi.L~';F~ j'·;c_''y` `(', 1975, CClaimant 517:f'fC'_'c d no '1,"-.`.'.C:3 t.J..oll ~!?... , I E.'a?Itil %'2d Wel'a~e benefits an. int'er'est payments arc. denied as per c ~_oi line cd.' C.lia,t: Ci.S of th ·. s Boexd. " and the .AT,,-ard reading

        "Cla llil sl:.stained a:. per opinion."


that; un;Le.. the terns and previsions of As`r'trd j0?0, ';;t._ Cartier hg.d -1 he Y;_ to a'edL1ct t!he snounb off: 145P.8J, `vacation Pay earneO. in tile war 1970, from the total anount of lost wages dire and payable jay said Awa'd for the period ',,,arch 1, i;;,'4 t':Zrough P.=sy 7., 19'71;.';

 Second Division Award No. 70,30 ,requires that the Claimant, Cayman Tm W, Robert-son, be paid for gall time lost f'1°cy_n Ma.l-en 1, ]-a;4 thraat;n Kay 7s lqrrt,1 o

 When the. Cnw'lc'!r W1"onE--E''-'Ily dismissed the Clainant an h_'carch 19, .1 974, it raid him %0 days vacation _-:-~,ys which ,..mss the total number of vacatin-I
                      < - , (-,

days earned by the __.n?2t ,..~; UE' that ~ date. Upon receipt of Award 703 .x,
 the Carrier dductel_ ",,4-_,02,80,, an amount eqyal to 10 days' vacai;i o:1 allo-za_ce,
 from the 7Jac1~: pat- 'p:._~c3 to the Claimant for the March .1 197`, through May 7,
          J.

1974 period durinS t:ich the Claimant w=a.;, wrongfully withhold fram service,
                      Page 2


IhM]RPRETATION N0. l TO AWARD NO. 7030 (DOCKET N0. 6742) Serial No. 79

 The Carrier contends that it is in cc~.-ormity with Award 7030 which requires that Claiinant be ,paid "for all tine lost from IJarch 1, 1972 through May 7, 1974" in that an employee who is off on vacation and is granted the proper anciount of vacation allo-vmnce has not "lost" any tL:e during such vacation period. The Carrier designated the days from March 1.6 through March 29, 1974 as days allocated for vacation ,purposes.
              r


We find that the Carrier's contention is incorrect. The Claimant unquestionably was not in :fact on vacation status frori March 16 through March 29, 197-I-. The Claimant vas wronF
 ~fL)1a.y being 1:e'ld. out of service on the d3.ys of. :March a_6 th;.^ough P,:a.rch 29, 19711. Since the Claimant, because or the ';;452.c80 deduction, received no vacatim in 1974, lie shall be compensated by the Carrier in the amount of >452.800

 Referee David I·. T~,romey who sat with the Division as a Member when Award 70?0 ;.gas rendered, also particii:ated with the Division in makJmg this intei,pretation.

                          I\.TATIONA'h RAILROAD ADJUSTI~EI,'T BOU0

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjusti:ent Board

                        fF0


By ;~:°;4 a Ha ..~ : .a x~ 5 ,rt , ~'~ , ~._.; v~-,rte _ -

      ,.~._.c*'r__._....~:,.~.w....ae.._:_..~.'_w:...a.i~,._..·."'° ry .~s __ _ ._'

      >t'.::.`.·,]:'1^e h>rasc}2 - ACn?.nj_Stra`i.lve Assistz-.nt'


Dated at C4iicago, Illinois, this 7th day of February, 1979.