Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9587
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 979
 2-GTW-MA-'83
 The Second Division consisted of the regular mambers and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muassig 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 involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act a s approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The significant events relative to this dispute began on July 24., 1981, when it was contended that the Claimant refused to follow the orders of his supervisors and threatened the life of one of them. On that same date, the Claimant was given a letter which dismissed him from the service effective July 27, 1981.

 On July 29, 1981, two letters were issued to the Claimant; one served to cancel the July 24, 1981 dismissal letter. The other letter: "Confirmed that you, were suspended from service. Pending hearing, effective July 27, 1981." This letter also listed a number of other incidents in which the Claimant was allegedly involved on July 24th, and stated that a hearing was scheduled for the purpose of determining the Claimant's responsibility, if any, for those events.

 The investigative hearing was held on August 18, 1981 and, as a result, a letter was sent to the Claimant on September 1, 1981, which removed him from service effective July 27, 1981.
 Form 1 Award No. 9587
 Page 2 Docket No. 9795
 2-GTW-MA-'83

 The thrust of the Organization. contention is that the Carrier violated the controlling rule of the applicable agreement when it failed to hold a trial to determine all of the facts, including the Claimant's responsibility for the alleged offense. The Organization maintains that, even though the termination letter was rescinded, the Carrier committed a fatal contractual error. The Claimant was not paid for the days between the date of dismissal (July 27, 1981) and the withdrawal of the dismissal letter (July 29, 1981). The Organization holds that because the employe was not paid for the days in question, it is apparent that the Carrier did not consider the Claimant to still be an employe at the time that the Carrier cancelled its discharge letter, thereby indicating that the Carrier intended to dismiss the employe.

 For its part, the Carrier does; not dispute that it was in error when the letter of July 24, 193 1 was issued. The July 29th letter, which cancelled the July 24th letter, was written because the Carrier realized that the rule used to terminate the Claimant's employment was no longer operative and that the effective controlling rule provided that the discipline cannot be imposed without an investigative hearing. Accordingly, it argues that because the error was corrected on July 29, 1981 and the Claimant was given a full investigation as required by the rule, the error was not prejudicial to Claimant's rights. The Carrier also argues that the merit:; of the case clearly call for a dismissal of the Claimant.

 The Board has thoroughly reviewed the voluminous and detailed record and submissions provided by the parties to this dispute. The threshold issue is whether the letter of July 29, 1931, served to correct the dismissal letter of July 24, 1981, thereby avoiding a fatal contractual violation.

 Clearly, the July 24, 1981 letter was violative of the controlling rule as recognized by the two letters which followed on July 29, 1981. On the day that he was dismissed, the employe was denied the most fundamental right that the contract provides to him -- the right to be heard -- before judgments are made which may serve to deprive him of employment. Certainly, there may be technical violations that for various and sundry reasons have little impact upon due process. The Board would agree that such nonprejudicial errors should not be used as a vehicle to overturn discipline. However, such is not the case before us. The nature of the error strikes at the heart of the employe protective provision of the contract for which both parties share equal enforcement responsibility. We, therefore, conclude that the improper letter of July 24, 1931 so grievously erred and prejudiced the Claimant's cause that it foreclosed any substantive action based on the events that led up to the July 2f+ letter. The claim, therefore, is sustained, to the extent that the claimant shall be restored to the service, with seniority rights unimpaired, but without any compensation for time lost while out of service.


Form 1 Award No. 9587
 Page 3 Docket No. 9795
 2-GTW-MA-183
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTrENT BOARD
 By Order of Sacond Division
 Attest: Executive Secretary

Nancy J. Dever P-" Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of July, 1983.