(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (a) The Georgia Railroad (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the currently effective Schedule Agreement between the parties, Article 8 thereof in particular, by its action in imposing discip Dispatcher A. L. Hall, Sr., based upon charges made against him on August 16, 1972, and hearing held pursuant thereto.

 (b) The Carrier shall now rescind the disciplinary action taken and clear the record of Claimant A. L. Hall, Sr.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Train Dispatcher A. L. Hall, Sr., following an investiga-
 tion, was assessed thirty demerits by Carrier for alleged failure to comply with Operating Rules F and 751 which resulted in delay to Work Extra 1025 at Greensboro, Georgia, on August 11, 1973.

 The American Train Dispatchers Association, on behalf of Claimant Hall, asks that Carrier rescind the disciplinary action and clear Hall's record on the following grounds:





After careful reading of Statements of the Organization and Carrier, and especially the evidence taken at the hearing, the Board is of the opinion that the evidence adduced at the hearing substantiated the charge against Claimant, thereby warranting discipline.

 As to the alleged "extenuating circumstances" referred to by the Organization, we feel that it was Claimant's responsibility to properly supervise the movement of the Work Extra, and if he had done so, he would have been informed "of work t4 be performed by Work Extra 1025, as he should have been."
                    Docket Number TD-20131


Finally, as to the Organization's position that claimant was not accorded a fair and impartial hearing, although the officer conducting the investigation was quite persistent, we do not believe this constituted prejudice, and we do not think Claimant was deprived of due process of law in any way.

        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 Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of September 1973.
        LABOR LEMBER'S DISSENT TO A*."BARD 1:0. 19919, DOCKET TD-20131

        REFEREE HAYS


Award No. 19919 correctly states the discipline resulted from a delay to Work Extra 1025 and correctly states the Organization's three grounds for reouesting rescinding of the discipline assessed. Thereafter, the Award is not correct.

    The Award states:

        " · · · After careful reading of Statements of the Organization end Carrier, and especially the evidence taken at the hearing, the Board is of the opinion that the evidence adduced'at the hearing substantiated the charge against Claimant, thereby :;arranting dincipline."


Taken alone, such a statement eight have weight and/or merit, but following this statement, the Ar:ard reads:
        "As to tae alleged 'extenuating circumstances referred to by 'he Organization, we feel that it was Claimant's responsibility to properly supervise the movement of the Work Extra, and if he had done so, he would have been informed 'of work to be performed by Work Extra 1025, as he should have bean.,"


Finding it was "C'aimant's responsibility to properly supervise the movement of the Work Extra", and if he had done so, he would have been informed "of Fork to be performed by Work Extra 1025, as he should have been" imputes a need for clairvoyance in this cas
        "Do you know whether or not anyone informed the train dispatcher that the Work Extra would have to go to Greensboro with this car?",


replied:
        "No, I don't know if anyone to--d the dispatcher that I was going to leave there at this time to come to Greensboro . . . ".


    This followed the Road Foreman's statement that:

        "I knew when we Not things together, I don't know whether it was 5:09 or not, that we'd have to come to Greensboro and set off a bad order car, and go back with the wrecker."


The hearing traps-ript plainly shows neither the Claimant nor the Assistant Chief Dispatcher (Claimant's immediate superior) was informed by the Road Foreman of Engines (the man in charge of the yrecker)nor the Superintendent of Transportation (:ho conducted derailment, haul a bad order car to Greensboro, and return to the derailment.
                                      LABOR IJEMBER'S DISSEW

                                      AWARD N0. 19919, TO-20131

                                      PAGE 2


Earlier in the Award it was recognized the Employes' objection was to the conducting officer of the hearing coaching a Carrier witness. But Award No. 19919, in closing, states:
        "Finally, as to the Organization's position that claimant was not accorded a fair and impartial hearing, although the officer conducting the investigation was quite persistent, we do not believe this constituted prejudice, and we do not think Claimant was deprived of due process of law in any way."


The issue of being donied a fair and impartial hearing because of the coaching of Carrier's witness by the conducting officer %,.,as not met.

    I must dissent.


                          J.

                                      17


                          P rickso

                          Labo Member