NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant herein was in the status of an extra train dispatcher. On July 21, 1966, he filled the position of trick train dispatcher at Spokane, Washington, hours 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., Monday through Friday.
At approximately 11:20 A.M., July 21, 1966, Extra 2500 West and Extra 303 East collided between Spokane and Yardley, Washington. On July 23, 1966, the Claimant, together with a number of other employes, was notified by the Superintendent to appear for an investigation on July 26, 1966. So far as the Claimant herein was concerned, the notice provided in part:
On the same date, July 23, 1966, the Superintendent issued notice to all those who had been cited that the investigation scheduled for July 26, 1966, was postponed until August 6, 1966. On July 27, 1966, the Superintendent issued another notice indefinitely postponing the date for the investigation, stating
that the postponement was at the request of the Local Chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and due to the hospitalization of Engineer L. J. Kuhn. On April 12, 1967, the Superintendent advised those involved that the investigation would be held on April 24, 1967, and as to dispatcher Longbottom stated:
The investigation was conducted on April 24, 1967. At the beginning of the investigation Claimant's representative protested the timeliness of the investigation under Rule 28 of the Agreement, and also protested that the notice did not constitute a proper charge. On May 8, 1967, the Claimant was assessed an actual suspension of fifteen calendar days, extending from May 12, 1967, to May 26, 1967.
The Carrier maintains that the investigation was postponed at the request of the Local Chairman of the Firemen's Organization and due to the hospitalization of engineer L. J. Kuhn, one of the employes involved, and that the Claimant was not prejudiced by reason of the postponement.
The Petitioner contends (1) that the Carrier failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 28, and (2) that the facts developed at the investigation did not establish any responsibility on the part of the Claimant for the accident involved.
-,day gme limitation of Rule 28(a). The record is also clear that no agreement was reached when the Management and the train dispatcher or his representative to extend the time limit for the holding of the investigation. The procedural requirements of the Agreement were clearly violated by the Carrier, and we will sustain the claim on this basis, without passing upon the question as to the responsibility on the part of the Claimant for the accident involved. See Awards 14496, 16697, 12103, 8714, among others.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: