Form 1 NATIONAL RAILRM AD,TLJSr:'ENT BOARD Award No, 8153
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. !'0 i0
 2-BNI-ELT-' 79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical 7lorkers)
 (
 ( Burlington Northern Inc.

 Dispute: Claim of EnmloyesL



Findings:
The Second Division of the Ad justment Board-, upon the `~lrole re-cord and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and erirploye with-*Ln the nearing of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193!+.

 This Div:Lsion of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

An investigative hearing was held on July 13, 1977 to determine the facts and circumstances relative to claimant's asserted failure to n:port for duty "at the designated time and n_ lace on June ?1 and, 2 7, 1977" ;.-,-,hil-,,a;3,-igned as an electrician at Clyde Round=house, Cicero, Illinois.

 Claimant eras found guilty of violating Rule 665 of the Burlington Northern Safety Rules and a mark of censure was entered on his personal record.

 Rule 665 which -is referenced hereinafter provides that, "E:-ployees must report for duty at the designated time and :lace. They must be alert, attentive and devote themselves exclusively to the Company's service while on duty. They must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties .,iith or substitute others in their place without proper authority."
 Form 1 Award No. 8153
 Page 2 Docket I-To. 7970
 2-DNI-E'-' 79

 Claimant contends that carrier violated his due process rights when it didn't specify the preferred charges and permitted the hearing officer to act in multiple administrative - judicial roles. He asserts that he didn't violate Pule 665 and that carrier acted too precipitously when it convened an investigative hearing.

In our review of the case, we find that the July 8, 1977 notice of hearing was sufficiently clear and detailed to a71oir claimant a reasonable opportunity to prepare a sound and intelligent defense. vle also find that the hearing officer acted in a judicially responsible manner:, There is no evidence in the record that he manifested a prejudicial course of conduct or was visibly biased toward the claimant.

 Claimant reported to work late on both dates and the records support this conclusively. In fact, claimant acknowledged these latenesses during the investigative hearing. He contends, however, that in view of his past employment record and the specific circumstances of his lateness, that an investigative hearing was uni,Tarranted, when a verbal admonishment would have sufficed. Inasmuch as there might be merit to these arguments, there is no precedent or Agreement Rule that constricts carrier to a system of escalated verbal chastisements. He was warned about the June 21st lateness and understood the possible consequences of repeated tardiness ;,inen lie-1-ras late again on June 27th. Carrier did not act unreasonably °frhen it issued the notice of hearing. In Second Division Award 7567, this Division stated in pertinent part that "It is implicit in the employee - employer relationship that each party shall live up to the bargain made. Employees accepting such positions are obligated to report for duty on or before the assigned starting time." We believe this decisional ratioaale is applicable herein. The record supports the charges and we have no justifiable substantive or procedural reason for disturbing the penalty imposed. We will deny the claim.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 ,.---Rotemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated T at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October, 1979.