Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8624
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8437
2-ICG-MA-'81
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers




Dispute: Claim of Employes:









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 ic"Ive& 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.



Claimant, A. F. Dawud, was discharged from carrier's service on January 26, 1979, for allegedly falsifying a release-to-work form by changing the date he was to report to work from November 13, 1978, to November 18, 1978. Consequently, claimant missed three days of work without carrier's permission. Carrier became aware of the fact that claimant may have modified his release form on November 18, 1978. Claimant was charged on December 27, 1978 and directed to attend a formal investigation into the matter. The investigation took place on January 18, 1979, and claimant was dismissed from service on January 26, 1979.
Form 1 Award No. 8624
Page 2 Docket No. 8437
2-ICG-MA-181

The organization alleged that this delay from November 18, 1978, to January 19, 1979, was unduly long. Claimant did not receive a prompt hearing. This is in violation of the agreement.

The organization also alleged that the hearing itself was improper, because: the hearing officer failed to take into account claimant's testimony. He concluded that claimant was guilty on the basis of a letter from Dr. Davidson, when Dr. Davidson could have been called to testify and be cross-examined.

Petitioner's arguments on these two points are persuasive. From the record of this case, it is clear that claimant was not afforded what could be considered a prompt hearing. Rule 39 of the agreement clearly requires that the hearing be prompt.

The Board is also of the opinion that Dr. Davidson's statement would have been more valid if he had been present at the hearing to answer questions about it.

Carrier was careless in the way it handled the charges and the hearing. While these shortcomings are not fatal to carrier's case, carrier should not have failed to grant claimant his full rights. Given the fact that claimant is not altogether blameless in the instance, it is the opinion of this board that claimant should be returned to work with no back pay.



Claimant shall be restored to his former position with all rights and benefits, but without compensation for lost time.




Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of February, 1981.