(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 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 General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Penn Central Transportation Company
 (former New York Central Railroad--Company-Lines West of Buffalo) that:

 (a) Carrier violated the current agreement between this organization and the former New York Central Railroad Company, Lines West of Buffalo, effective March 1, 1951, as October 12, 1970, it disciplined Leading Signal Mechanic B. I. Clawson, Signal Mechanics C. A. Riffle and T. L. Adams, and Assistant Signal Mechanics W. J. Long and G. L. Hewitt, without first affording them a proper hearing as required by paragraph (a) of that rule.

 (b) Carrier should be required to clear their personal records of any reference to this discipline, compensate them for any and all time lost because of it, and for any time spent traveling to and attending the October 1, 1970 investigation, reimburse them for transportation and any other expenses incurred in connection compounded monthly, on all money payable under this claim, with this interest to commence November 1, 1970 and continue until money is paid.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The facts and circumstances in this case are identical to
 those in Third Division Award 19965 except that the
 claimants here are the members of the Gang of which the claimant in the pre
 ceding Award was the Foreman. The primary issue raised by Petitioner, as in
 Award No, 19965, is whether claimants received a proper hearing in accordance
 with Rule 51 of the Agreement. Again, Petitioner avers that a precise charge
 was not furnished by the Carrier prior to the hearing.

 The principle set forth by the Board in its determination in Award No. 19965 has equal application in the instant case regarding the question of a proper hearing, wherein we found that claimant had been afforded a fair and impartial hearing and that Carrier had not abused its discretionary authority in the assessment of discipline. To belabor the point in this case would serve no useful purpose. As a matter of fact, it would appear, in light of the circumstances, that the dis






That the Carrier and the Eh:ployes 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 determination in Award No. 19965 has equal application to this
 case and we will deny the claim for the same reasons as stated therein.
 A W p R




        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1973.

 I