(a) Carrier violates time limit provisions of Rule 51(b) of the current working Agreement when Carrier assessed Signal Maintainer F. D. Pollard with thirty (30) days actual suspension and disqualified him from holding the position or Classification of Leading Signal Maintainer, such suspension and disqualification in connection with a hearing conducted in Terre Haute, Indiana, on November 6 and 7, 1969, and Rule 51(b) is here quoted:
(b) Carrier now be required, as the result of the violation of Rule 61(b) as referred to in (a) above, to restore Signal Maintainer F. D, Pollard to service of the Carrier and make him whole fox. all time lost commencing December 13, 1969, inclusive, and continuing through January 11, 1970, unless he is restored to service before the latter date, and clear his personal record of any charges or any disqualification as referred to in the letter of December 11, 1969.
Discipline and Grievances: (a) Except as provided in Rule 23(c) of this agreement, no employe who has been in service covered by this agreement fox 90 calendar days or more shall be disciplined without a fair hearing by a designated official of the carrier. Suspension in proper cases pending a hearing shall not be deemed a violation of this principle. At a reasonable time prior to the hearing he shall
OPINION Oh' BOARD: On October 28, 1969 theca was a rear end collision at Mile Post 126.22 near Charleston, Illinois, betzs-een trains THNI 2 and MP 8 at about 1:05 'J'. M., CST.
As a consequence of the collision, several emnloyes, including the Claimant F. 17. Pollard, were z~_-quested by Carrier to at'_end a "formal investigationtxial to be conducted at Herre Haute House, Terre Haute, Indiana, at 9:00 A. M., CST, Thursday. November .G, 1969, to develop the facts and determine your r·3spovsibility, if any .fox rear end collision at M.P. 116.22 near Charleston, Illinois, between trains TxIM '2 and M.F.-S at about h:05 P.M. CST, October "28, 1969"
Claimant testified at the txia.l-investig:3tion held on November G aryl 7, 1.969, and it was opt shown that he load any responsibility for the false clear signal of October 2$, 1.969.
Ilowe·..-er.~, tha evidence did disclose that Claimant, when shooting trouble at Charleston, Illinois about three years before, had used faulty techniques in analyzing trouble in testing to ascertain the cause of trouble and in correcting the trouble.
On November 20, 1969, based on what it learned during the trial-investigation on November G and 7, 1969, Carrier wrote Claimant under date of November 29, '.1369 asking that Claimant attend a hearing on 17ec-2mber 1., 1969 * * * "to develop the facts and determine your responsibility, if any, for improper performance of :,-our duties while shooting signal trouble at Charleston, Illinois, interlocking ap p:1a.-.;.imately three years ago, as revealed in testimony at trial-inve.stigatioi? held at '.heri°e Haute, Indiana, on November 6 and 7, 1969
At_ze hearing on December 1., 1969 there was made a ,part of the record of said hearing- portions of the transcript cf tire trial-investigation of November G and '7, 1069. Carrier's first/ iinowiedge of improper performance by Claimant, which performance had occ=°ed three ;ears before, came from the testimony of C'laimavt at the trial-investigation of November 6 and i, 1969.
The Organization ir, its x°ebu'va'l contends that the only plausible reason that Carrier he'd a s::cor=d hearing was ho give Carrier a chance to tale another snot at Clair-Za:,v Pollard because it :Galled to assess discipline against Claimant va'aI_ia 14 calvn:lar days after completion of the November G and r, 1969, hearings as required by Rule 51. We disa..wree with this contention of the Organization. When Claimant attended the November G and 7 hearings he was on notice on:y ;;hat tiza·T :·eal~; with the rear end collision of October ?8, 1969. He eras mot on r_ct~c~i;lhat he ,should be prepared to defend conduct of his that occurred tlixec years before and had Carrier disciplined Claimant within fourteen days after the Nove2xvbea° G and r, 1969 hearings without giving Claimant a farther hearir.- it would have been in violation of the contract.
We further disagree with the Organization's assertion that Carrier dial not a-nprise the Claimant properly of the charge against biro. Tile charge even
made reference to tile events Claimant had discussed "in testimony at trialinvestigation held * * * on November 6 and 7, 1969 * * *_"
Claimant was officially notified under letter dated November 20, 1969, to attend a hearing on December 1, 7.969 "to develop the facts and determine your responsibility, if any, for improper performance of your duties while shooting signal trouble at Charleston, Illinois interlocking approximately three years ago, as revealed in testimony at trial-investigation held at Terre Haute, Indiana. on November E and 7, 7.969 * * *" Even if this notice could have been more artfully drawn, it is adequate if it comports with the standard of reasonably apprising an employe of what circumstances are to be under scrutiny so that he will not be surprised. We think the notice meets this traditional standard.
Claimant was charged on November 20, 1369 and the hearing was held on December 1. 1969, which was certainly within 14 calendar days after the charge. On December 11, 1969, Claimant was advised of the decision to suspend and disqualify him for thirty days as a Leading Signal Maintainer, which decision was within 14 days after the December 1, 7.969 hearing. We therefore find no violation of the 14 day requirement of Rule 51(b).
We think, notwithstanding the arguments of the Organization, that Claimant was given :fair treatment, that Carrier proved that Claimant had, failed to perform his duties, that we should not interfere with disciplining measures when they axe reasonable as in this case and that there has been no violation of the Agreement.
BINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, capon the whole retard and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employ es inv olvad in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustn-ert Board has jurisdiction over the dispute invloved herein; and