"... for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility, if any, in connection with your alleged endangering yourself and fellow employee at approximately 1:30 pm on October 20, 1993, when you made contact with 4,160 volt power conductor, without proper safety equipment, after being specifically instructed by your foreman of the extreme danger involved. This incident was brought to the attention of a officer of the Carrier on November 16, 1993 ...."

1) the Investigation was not held within 20 days

of the occurrence,

2) that it was not held within ten days of being

notified that Claimant was being withheld from

service,

3) that the General Chairman never received a

copy of the original notice,

4) that the Local Chairman was not furnished a

copy of the discipline assessed, and that

5) Carrier did not furnish a complete transcript.

Rule 30(i) of the Disciplinary Rule reads as follows:

"(i) If investigation is not held or decision rendered within the time limits herein specified, or as extended by agreed to postponement, the charges against the employee shall be considered as having been dismissed."

Rule 30(i) quoted s ra goes solely to the time limits providing when the Investigation must be held and when the decision must be rendered. If Items 1 and/or 2 stated su ra were violated, Rule 30(i) would be controlling. The Investigation will be "considered as having been dismissed."

Rule 30(i) does not go to the copies or even to the notification of charges aspect. Suffice to say Claimant had the minimum 5 day advance notice, even if the General Chairman did not. Besides, it is obvious the General Chairman's office was notified as Claimant was represented by a representative from that office, and did appear at the Investigation ready to defend Claimant.

Regarding the copy of the notice of discipline, it did go to the Vice General Chairman who did timely file a nine page claim in Claimant's behalf seeking to overturn the discipline and have Claimant reinstated and paid for all time lost. There is nothing in the record that shows Claimant was in any way prejudiced in the manner Carrier handled the notice of discipline.

Regarding the less than complete transcript, this Board cannot resolve that issue and must dismiss the charge on the basis of irreconcilable differences. A review of the transcript reveals no unfinished question and answer session. When the Organization raised the issue, the Carrier denied it occurred, but it did ask if anything was missing, would the Organization furnish a transcript of the missing pages (the Organization had their own tape of the Investigation). Nothing was furnished by the organization to support their assertion.

Regarding the contention that carrier did not serve notice within 20 days of the date of the occurrence as provided in the Rule, it is the opinion of this Board that the notice was timely. The Rule has an exception to the 20 days from date of occurrence clause, and that reads:

"... except that personal conduct cases will be subject to the twenty (20) day limit from the date information is obtained by an officer of the Carrier ...."

Testimony at the Investigation clearly established that the Carrier Officer responsible was not informed of claimant's conduct until November 16, 1993. The organization's argument that the Foreman who witnessed the incident on the date it occurred is deemed a Carrier Officer, has been denied by the Carrier and that denial is endorsed by this Board.

From that aspect, the notice was timely. It was within 20 days when a Carrier Officer became aware of Claimant's conduct.

96-2-95-2-25