(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk and Western Railway Company ( (Involving employees on lines formerly operated by the Wabash Railroad Company)

(1) Carrier violated the provisions of the Schedule for Clerks, effective May 1, 1953, when following investigation held on December 20, 197i, it arbitrarily, capriciously and unjustly assessed a thirty (30) day suspension from service against Clerk J. R. Grubb.

 (2) Claimant shall now be paid for all time lost as a result of Carrier's unjust action.

 (3) In addition to the amounts claimed above, the Carrier shall pay Claimant an additional amount of eight (8) per cent per annum, compounded annually on the anniversar
(4) Carrier shall further be required to remove and expunge the record suspension dated December 27, 1971, of thirty (30) days and shall forthwith clear Claimant's
OPINION OF BOARD; In support of its position is this case Petitioner alleges
 that the Carrier notice of hearing, dated December 10, 1971,
 was inadequate and vague; that Claimant was not afforded a fair and impartial
 hearing; that Claimant's procedural right of appeal was blocked; and, among other
 assertions, that the time limit provisions of Rule 28 (b) were violated.

 Carrier's notice of hearing, referred to above, stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

Said notice specified the date of investigation to be December 20, 1971, the originally scheduled date having been postponed at the request of the Organization.


We find that this notice of hearing was neither inadequate nor vague in that it advised claimant as to the type of incident to be investigated, the dates when the incident is alleged to have occurred, and that the charge was sufficiently distinct to advise claimant so that he could properly prepare his defense. See Awards 14581 and 18128 in support of the foregoing conclusion.

 The record before us also shows that the claimant's procedural rights of appeal were not blocked, as alleged, in that no written request far appeal hearing was received by the Carrier, as specifically called for in Rule 28 (b) of the Agreement. What the Carrier did receive, in this regard, was a letter from the local chairman, dated December 31, 1971, appealing Carrier's decision following the investigation and merely stating, in pertinent part, "**** We feel Mr. Grubb should be called back into service and paid for his time lost, or set a time, date and place to discuss same," (Emphasis added).

 Further, a thorough review of the transcript of the investigation indicates that there was substantial evidence to show that some discipline was warranted. However, in view of the employee's long service with the company (23 years) we feel that the discipline imposed was excessive, and that a suspension from service for commensurate with the offense. Insofar as part 3 of the claim is concerned, there is nothing in the Agreement that provides for the payment of interest.

 In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the claim to the extent of allowing pay for time lost in excess of fifteen (15) days and deny the claim in all other respects.



That the Carrier and the Employee 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

·, ,. ~,
 '1'.M`i..f7..~'Y~

                  A W A R D


Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion and Findings.

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of May 1973.

 ps-