(American Train Dispatchers' Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, Jervis Langdon, Jr., ( and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of (Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers' Association that:

 Train Dispatcher I. C. Stone be reinstated immediately as a train dispatcher with all rights restored and be compensated for all time lost, beginning at 3:01 p.m., Fr in disqualifying I. C. Stone as a train dispatcher in violation of Article 9 of the effective agreement.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This is a discipline case in which claimant was disqualified
 as a train dispatcher as a result of charges preferred
 against him on March 3, 1970, reading:









          "4. Violation First Paragraph Rule 400N10 which reads in part: 'they are responsible for transmitting and recording, Train Orders as prescribed by the rules; for issuing such other instructions as may be required for the safe and efficient movement of trains, etc.' on February 25, 1970.


        You may, if you so desire, furnish witnesses and be accompanied by representatives of your own choosing, without expense to the company."


The hearing was rescheduled and held on March 9, 1970, a transcript of which has been made a part of the record.

 lie can find no proper basis for the contention of the Petitioner that claimant was tried twice for the same offense and thus placed in double jeopardy. No statements were tnkcn at the previous hearing scheduled for March 3, nor was claimant placed under interrogation_ There is no showing that a decision was made as a result of those proceedings. Neither do we 'Ind any hasis for the contention that the notice of March 3, 1970, did not constitute a precise charge under the agreement. It is clear what the claimant was charged with, and the time of th^_ alleged offense. The notice was sufficient to enable claimant to prepare a defense. None of claimant's substantive procedural rights were violated by the manner in which the hearing was conducted.

 It is noted from the record that the claim was progressed to the Superintendent, Labor relations states that it was denied verbally.

 From our study of the entire record, including the transcript of the hearing, it is our finding that claimant failcd to fully meet his responsibility as a train dispatcher under that portion of rile 400N1.0 quoted in the charge. However, there does appear to be extenuating circumstances. The record is not clear as to the responsibility of the block operator in a situation of the kind here involved.

 We understand from the record that claimant. had worked for the Carrier for some 28 years as a train dispatcher, and 'I·-ere it: no rccnrd of prior discipline against him. Under all the circumstance.^, involved, permanent dis award that he be restored to the service as a train dispatcher, with his former seniority as such, but without pay or any difference in pay suffered by him since his disqualification.
                  Award Number 19504 Page 3

                  Docket Number TD-19549


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved 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 Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the discipline imposed was excessive.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained to the extent indicated in Opinion and Findings.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~/
 Executive SLcrctary

 Dated at Chicago, 111inois, this 30th day of November 1972.

 I