papn-[osoo xa-lxxeO `uo-p~rOT4saAUT ~)Tl!:. a.e paonppe aouapTAa aq-. JO ~.Znsax V std
'L6`~ `6-I xaqUIaAON so J~'.np sa qa.C ~.ou sleX u-:~TUZS jseacTVTS OTTqa .&ep '.sax

uo sxea xoq omq. uzoxj asTpu'eqoxauz JO TeAoucax pazxxaq+n-eun aqq. q4TM soLqoasuoo ut !~4tTTqTSUOdsax aTQ.oadsax xTaq,.~ auTUZxaqap off. pTaq so1q.eDT4saAUT


,uoaxaTlq 2mxeaq 4.v aosexeadde jo ~.qDTx paATea a!IndsTp pTes o!. saljxlad

-uTaxaq paA-LoAUT a~.illalp aq'. xaAo soT':~o'~psTxnC sail pxeog quauzWnrpV acv. xo soTST.nTQ STqJ








:~,eq~. spuTJ `aasap-Caa at44 `C-Ce pine pxoaaa aToqM auk. sodn `px'eog !~saMq.sn~pV aqq JO soTSTATa puooaS aq,j


'~L6T `6T aaquraaom xoi awex ,pTeq-auo

pue aUT4 au!. 4.,e qaea sxnoq (~) aaxq1. xor qqTuzS ' M -V pue qq.oqqv

"q *,f u'LLU,XVD a4esuadu:oo off. paxapxo aq xaix,xeo .-T2xTp.zoao-e 4eqj,


' ~L6`E

`6T xaquzaaol1 uo sxnoq pauipTTnq pau?Tsse ~-xe-~rax xTau9, jo

apTsq.no pa4aruqsul se sa c.np zuTUrxoJ.xad xoj Maqq, a,.esuaduloo

off, pauTZoap xaixx-eo uaTIM qqTM qTeap -~T4sm'un axaca qf.Tuzr -M "V pue

qq.oqqy ·q 'p sauzxeD quauzaax2v OuTxaox quaxxna aqq, xaptxn ZLql


:: su:q ja MTVTD

,~sedMo0 .~.-~-ce uxaq.sam Pula NTOJ.ZON

' 0 ' I ' 0 ' `l Jo ' Lq ' v `q.uauzvedac[
,sa,~o-Educ Awq-ceu 49T ·olq soTq.exapaa uzaqx4o

·paaapuax seM p-PMV saqX I.xeM uuA ·1, xn uT put sxaqmauz ,zeax aq4 jo pa Zs-csuo

g)a -KO-MVN-?,
TtmL "oN qaxootl NOISIAIG CDIOOdS

LLgL ' o .N P.ZV CIIVOg asSYILLSaL'GV QVOUUVU rlVKOIIVI

:2~.nzg off. sazI-Te'l

o

ttVV aaxaJag uoT!T-,rppe
uozsTnTg puooaS aqj
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 7677
Docket No. 7441
2-N&W-CM-'78

"An employee shall not be discharged for any cause without first being given an investigation. If it is found that an employee has been unjustly discharged or dealt with, such employee shall be reinstated and shall, be compensated for the wage loss, if any suffered by him, the compensation earned by him in outside employment in the meantime shall be taken into consideration in determining the wage loss."

Rule 33, in contractually limiting the inherent right to arbitrarily issue discipline, imposed an obligation on Carrier to first hold an investigation. This deterent to stwnary Carrier action wa.s seen as being of mutual benefit. The Rake clearly provided for coTpensation only if discipline had been imposed, that there had been a wage loss suffered as a ,result thereof and that the appellant handling of the discipline assessed resulted in the conclusion that said discipline was unjust. The three conditions stipulated in the rule are not met by the facts of this case. Consequently, Rule 33 provides no support for the instant claims.



service for the Carrier. (;See Awards 1632, 3484, 3492, 5871, 5872 and 6421.)

As pointed out in Third Division Award 21320 (Dorsey):

3426, 5870,

"In the absence of a specific provision in an Agreement that a charged party shall be paid for attendance at a discipline investigation hearing it is the .practice in the railroad industry that the employee is not contractually entitled to pay for tame in attendance at the hearing ...."

Absent a supporting rule this claim will be denied.

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS`.L'METdT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


~"I~ semarie Branch - Administ-rative Assistant

Dated (t Chicago, Illinois this l 9th day of Se ember l 8.