---~, period he was deprived of his rights to service.














L.y,; of the Company image; however, your present appearance does not

















~~ of the Company and its employees. Every employee is expected
 .` to yield a willing and cheerful obedience thereto. To
                    enter or remain in the service is an assurance of willing

                    ness to obey the rules...'


                You are hereby instructed to report to the office of Master Mechanic, Tampa, Florida, 9:00 a.m.) September 1, 1971, for formal investigation to develop the facts and place responsibility in connection with charges placed against you. You may have present any witnesses who have personal knowledge of this matter under investigation and duly authorized representative of System Federation No. 42."


      Master Mechanic Gray, who filed the charges against Claimant, served as the Hearing Officer at the investigation held on September 8, 1971. The Organization, on behalf of Claimant, requested Gray to disqualify himself which request was refused by Gray in the following exchange:


                    "Q. Mr. Gray, T am going to have to ask you to disqualify yourself from further conducting this investigation on the grounds that you are vitally interested in this, this

' can't be a fair and impartial investigation with you being
                    instrumental in these charges being filed against Mr. McClure,

                    further that you will or are acting as prosecutor, you will

                    use transcript of this investigation to be the jury, the

                    judge and you are acting in a dual or triple capacity?

Form 1 Award No. 71032
 Page 3 Docket No. 6682
 2-SCL-CM-'76
 "A. The transcript of the investigation will not be judged by
 the investigating officer. The investigating officerrs
 duty is to :record all facts, the degree of responsibility
 of the principal party will be determined based on the
 transcript of the investigation and not by the investigating
 officer nor this office. Additionally, the instructions with
 regard to personal appearance and beards will be made part:
 of this investigation and is to be made part of this inves
 tigation now, it will be read and attached to the investiga
 tion as Appendix 3."
 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Gray reviewed the record of hearing,
 made a determination of guilt and assessed a thirty (30) day suspension against
 Claimant. Claimant was returned to service on November 1, 1971 with his beard
 still intact. It is worth noting that on October 18, 1971 Carrier's Vice
 President, Personnel - Labor Relations issued a memorandum substantially modi
 fying the grooming requirements of the Carrier as follows:

          "The prescribed guidelines and standards should be applied to those employees who come in direct visual contact with the public in-transacting company business.. Appropriate exceptions may be made where local communities are having festivals or celebrations and citizens are encouraged to wear beards during such events; but even. under those circumstances, beards should be kept neatly trimmed and removed promptly at the end of the event. Such exception should. be limited to employees whose work is confined, to the immediate geographic area of the festival or celebration and does not require, travel into other areas.


          'The policy is further modified so that employees working in shops, yards, on roadway and signal forces and elsewhere on jobs not involving direct visual contact with the public in the transacting of company business may work with longer hair styles and beards, provided the hair and beards are kept neatly trimmed and do not jeopardize safety.


          'Please see that these modifications and exceptions are clearly understood and properly applied by sub-department heads and key supervisory personnel-"


Upon review of this record we find that each of the parties has raised numerous arguments and counter-arguments, including Constitutional issues, questions of managerial prerogative, societal standards and public relations, and administrative and Court decisions. As we see this case, we can reach none of these questions because of the procedural irregularities in the Carrier's handling of the investigation on the property.
 Form 1 Award No. 7032
 Page 4 Docket No. 6682
 2-SCL-CM-1 76

 It appears that Claimant may not have been faultless in failing to comply with a regulation of Carrier. On the other hand, there is some evidence of record to suggest that the rule was not promulgated officially nor enforced in a non-discriminatory manner. The general principle in these cases is that an employee is required to obey directions of management unless they, present a danger to his health or welfare and to .file a grievance if he believes the order unreasonable or viola tine of his collective bargaining agreement. But we similarly do not reach this question in. the instant case because of the fatal procedural defect by which Carrier utilized Gray as accuser, hearing officer, reviewer of his own hearing record, assessor of discipline and appeals officer. We are aware of Awards going both ways on the issue of Carrier officers performing more than one role in disciplinary matters and each such case apparently must turn on its individual facts. We have no doubt in this case, however, that the personal involvement of Gray at every phase of the disciplinary process rendered it impossible, both in appearance and in fact, for Claimant to receive a fair and impartial investigation. As we stated in Award 5223: "If discipline hearings prescribed by collective bargaining agreements are to possess any meaning, they must be conducted impartially and in line with . elementary standards of fair play, no matter how informal the proceedings nay be." Because of the defects mentioned supra, the discipline imposed cannot be upheld on the record developed in this case.

 In sustaining the claim on procedural grounds we intimate no view with respect to the merits of the charge of insubordination. No basis for recovery of overtime pay has been shown on this record, therefore recovery is limited to eight hours at the pro rata rate for the dates listed in the claim.

                          A WA R-D


      Claim sustained to the extent indicated -in the Opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

                    d:F>

By - ~-&*AA
 Tsemarie Brasch -(Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of April, 1976.
 RECEIVE
 MAY 4 - 1976

 G. M. YO U H N DISSW OF CARRIER S
 TO

 SECOND DIVISION AWARD

 , Docl Err 6682
Award 7032 is in serious error in sustaining the claim on the basis that claimant did not receive a fair and impartial investigation.

 The Master Mechanic was the ranking mechanical officer on the Division and it was entirely proper for him to conduct the investigation. The Agreement contains no provision as to who will prefer charges, conduct investigations, or render decisions. Awards are legion to the effect that the same officer preferring the charges, conducting the investigation, and rendering the decision does not constitute a violation of the Agreement or deprive the employs charged of a fair and impartial hearing. See, for example, Second Division Awards 6196, 6004,, 5855, 5360, 4211, 4001, 1795 among others, as well as Third Division Awards 20673, 16268t 14573, 10355, 9322, 8179· As stated in Second Division Award 6004:

 "the basic test for determining due process is haw was it [the investigation] conducted - not who conducted it."

 Award 7032 is not supported by the Agreement, by the record before the Division, or by case law of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. We must, therefore, register our vigorous dissent.

 Carter

 . ~. Joned\J

 ~so
      a n


elY dr

 CARRIER MEMBERS