(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement when it held employs L. R. Grubb out of service from November 13, 1970 to December 1, 1970 pending the decision rendered on the investigation held November 24, 1970.

 2) Carrier further violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement when it failed to notify employe L. R. Grubb in writing of a precise charge and the finding of him guilty and suspending him from service for 30 days from December 2, 1970 to January 1, 1971 was wholly unfair and unreasonable and it was not supported by the record; therefore the disciplinary action taken was without proper cause and such action was arbitrary, capricious, unfair and unreasonable.

 3) Carrier shall be required to clear the record of employe L. R. Grubb and compensate him for all time lost.

 4) Carrier shall compensate employe L. R. Grubb six percent per annum on all sums due and withheld as result of this violative action.

 OPINION OF BOARD: In the morning of November 13, 1970, Claimant L. R. Grubb,
 was required to vacate his assignment and leave the property
 of Carrier, on account of allegedly being under the influence of intoxicants.
 On November 17, 1970 he was given written notice to report November 24 for in
 vestigation "to develop all facts and circumstances in connection with your
 allegedly being under the influence of alcohol at about 4:30 a.m., November 13,
 1970 ** " Following the investigation, a letter of December 2, 1970 addressed
 to Mr. Grubb advised him that he was suspended from service for 30 days from
 December 2, 1970 to January 1, 1971, inclusive.

 Petitioner contends, that the investigation could have been held earlier than November 24 and th November 24, an 11-day period, was in violation of Rule 22 - Discipline and Grievances, inasmuch as the rule provides that investigations will be held prior to the time employes are held from service, when it is possible to do so. He


contends that it was possible to hold the investigation sooner, but has offered no proof to supp the requirements of Rule 22.

 Petitioner further claims that there would have been no danger in allowing Claimant to continue working until the investigation was held and a decision rendered thereon. This issue is not within the province of this Board's jurisdiction. Finding no rule to support this contention, we dismiss it.

 Petitioner next contends that the notice was deficient in that it failed to contain a precise charge. We rule that the charge, date and time specified in the notice of November 17, 1970 ("allegedly being under the influence of alcohol at about 4:30 a.m. November 13, 1970") was specific and did apprise Claimant of the reason for the investigation. The transcript of the investigation reveals that upon being asked "Did you receive notice of this investigation and its purpose thereof?" Mr to proceed with the investigation. Accordingly, Petitioner's contention in this respect cannot be entertained by the Board, and it is dismissed.

 Petitioner next submits that Carrier's finding the Claimant guilty of the charge and assessing a 30-day suspension from service was unreasonable and not supported by the record and, therefore, such action was capricious, unfair and unreasonable. A careful review of the transcript leads us to conclude that the witnesses called by Carrier - two Trainmasters, Assistant Agent and Assistant Trainmaster - all of whom personally knew the Claimant, each attested he had observed Claimant's unusual and abnormal conduct, unsteadiness in walking, that he talked very loud and his speech was slurred. The Trainmasters found a half pint bottle bearing a vodka label in Claimant's car, which was half empty. An analysis of the contents of the bottle made by a Laboratory confirmed that the bottle contained vodka.

 It has been consistently held in Awards of this Board that where Carrier has produced substantia manner consistent therewith, without a showing of abuse of discretion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the Carrier, nor disturb its imposition of discipline - if it is consistent with the offense commited. Based on all the facts of record in this dispute, we will deny the claim.

        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;
                  Award Number 19877 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-19720


That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                    ~f By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ·~ ~~ i/v
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of July 1973.