NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 Robert M. O'Brien, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 Award Number 19601
 Docket Number CL-19413

 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes

 (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

1. Carrier violated the provisions of the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Milwaukee, Wisconsin when it notified employer of the Material Department to report for an investiga
2. Carrier's actions in holding investigations with the following employes shall be declared null and void and each employe's record shall be cleared of the disciplinary measures assessed against him or her:

 H. Bahr C. Royce T. Taugher M. Higgins
 N. Bakken S. Soulier, Jr. J. Zingler H. Janke
 R. Banholzer R. Spors J. Kempinger
 R. Bever .l. Thekan E. Au.-ustin P. Klisanic
 F. Braun A. E. Volke W. Backes R. P. Krol
 F. Brieger J. Weigert A. F.agrowski S. J. Laday
 W. Deering R. Winter J. J.`Crotty J. Lipinski
 W. Drobac H. Ferkens K. Matous
 W. Finney, Jr. V. Amick J. Grossman K. Meister
 G. Gunsolley A. Babich W. 0. Kaebisch F. Motola
 J. Jenkins R. Becker R. Kraft R. Peters
 R. Kane F. Blando C. Kret F. M. Reed
 A. Kirchoff P. Conklin R. Lewis L. Schmeling
 T. Kitchkume V. Fobes J. F. Parks H. Schulenberg
 R. Knabel S. Greenwood R. Ramer S. H. Sheff
 F. Koch H. Meyer C. Ros H. G. Teach
 G. Lang E. J. Paik A. Steinbrenner K. Van Ess
 R. Matuzak S. Powalisz A. Wenninger
 E. McDonald Wm. Scale E. L. Bentley J. R. Wolf
 V. Riordan V. Sliwinski A. Cefalu L. E. Kerlin


(3) Carrier's actions in holding investigations with the following employes shall be declared null and void, and each employe's record shall be cleared of the disciplinary measures assessed against him or her:

                    J. E. Baum

                    D. L. Grayson

                    G. C. Nelson

                    M. M. Heltsley

                    T. H. Wagner


OPINION OF BOARD: Although there was an order outstanding from the U. S. Dis
 trict Court, District of Columbia, restraining all shopcraft
 unions of the nation's railroads from striking until February 21, 1970, a strike
 occurred at Carrier's shops in Milwaukee on February 11, 1970. Claimants, em
 ployes of Carrier's Material Department at the Milwaukee shops, were not on strike.
 However, since the strikers had set up picket lines on this date, the claimants
 refused to cross the picket lines and thus did not report to their assignments
 on February 11, 1970. Following an investigation, claimants were found guilty .
 failing to protect their assignments on February 11, 1970 and were each assessed
 either 10, 5, or 3 days deferred suspension. Appeal from the assessment of dis
 cipline was duly progressed with Carrier's final decision upholding the disciplin
 coming on May 22, 1970. The within claim was filed on June 3, 1970.

 The Carrier contends that the claim is barred in that it was not filed within the 60 day period prescribed in Rule 36-1(a). That Rule is taken from the August 21, 1954 National Agreement. Following the investigation, March 23, 1970 was the last day on which any disciplinary assessment was made. And since the claim was not filed until June 3, 1970 Carrier contends Rule 36-1(a)was violated. However, claimants appealed the assessment of discipline in accordance with Rule 22 and on May 22, 1970 Carrier rendered a final decision upholding the assessment of discipline. Since the claim was filed within 60 days of Carrier's final decision the Organization
The procedural issue raised herein is not novel. Award 17595 of this Division, involving the same parties herein, upheld the Organization's position and concluded: "We do not believe it a proper construction of the two rules to require Claimant to abandon his remedy under Rule 22 and require him to initiate a new claim under Rule 36 when he has not obtained a final decision from the Carrier within 60 days Nor do we believe it is the intent of the parties that an employe maintain concurrent claims or grie Carrier, seeking the same relief and from the same officer of the Carrier." We subscribe to the reasoning therein and find that the "occurrence" referred to in Rule 36-1(a)was the final decision made May 22, 1970 upholding the assessment of discipline and the claim was filed within 60 days of that date and thus not barr-_. We will proceed to the merits of the claim.
                    Award Number 19601 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-19413


At the investigation most of the claimants testified that the reason they would not cross the picket lines was their fear of safety for themselves, their families and their property had they crossed to protect their assignments. They did not know i arriving at the scene police told them to turn back and go home. Many did not even know who was on strike. Many of the claimants are elderly. Most feared either immediate physical harm or subsequent reprisals to their person or property if they attempted
Carrier believes that since the strike was illegal, there was no violence at the scene, the s protection, there was no reason for claimants' refusal to cross the picket lines.

 We cannot agree with Carrier's actions. It is undisputed that the claimants did not take part in the picket line. Nor did they know whether the strike was legal or ille.-al. And even if they did know, it is highly unlikely that they could distinguish the two adequately so that they could guide their actions accordingly. It is immaterial that in retrospoet it developed that the strike was illegal and there was no violence at the picket line. Hindsight is not enough. It is the subjective belief of claimants on the morning of February 11, 1970 that is the determining factor as to wheth~r cr not they were justified in refusing to cross the picket lines.

 From the investigaticns it was shown that on the morning of February 11, 1370, claimants'fear was wcll founded. From all the circumstances surrounding the picket lines, and when Carrier subsequently disciplined claimants for this action it acted arbitrarily and unreasonably. The discipline imposed cannot be allowed to stand.

        FINDINCS: 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 o:' the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
                  Award Number 19601 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-19413


        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAIMOAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST- 22a"s-d

Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of February 1973,