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

1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Chicago, Illinois, when it failed to notify employe C. Misc.;lo in writing cf the precise charge and/or charges made against her i:i aLrition to not receiving a fair and impartial investigation.

 2) Carrier Pirther vi,,lated the Agreement when it suspended employe C. Mascolo from Carrier service for a period of thirty days.

 3) Carrier shall now be required to clear employe C. Mascolo's record and compensate her for all time lost.

 4) Carrier shall be required to pay, on the total amount claimed in Item 3 above, 7`°,o a^ interezt ~:-nmencing on June 22, 1971 and compounded annually until thin claim is p ai.i in full.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, after' an investigation, was suspended for thirty
 days on the finding t':at .he violated an (,ffice rule, insub
 ordination, and that she was ahcent from her position without permission on a
 certain date. Claimant, upon he: request, -:a^ also accorded an unfair treatment
 hearing following the i^Positicn of the discipline.

 Petitioner first claims that the charges in this matter were not precise. We do not agree. The : of the conduct under investigation. Subsequent testimony and conduct of Claimant's representative cl prejudiced by the statement of charges. -That there was no request for a postponement by obviously s bolsters our view that the statement of charges did not jeopardize claimant's rights.

 The conduct of the hearings it this matter gives us considerable concern. Hearings under the gri neither adversary proceedings nor criminal trials. A^ fact finding investigations
                    Docket Number CL-19933


such hearings must be conducted with utmost fairness and objectivity by the hearing officer; they must not be impeded by technical rules of evidence and must accord employees reasonable latitude in developing their defensive positions, Above all, such hearings must be conducted in such a manner that the conduct of the hearing officer is unimpeachably objective and unbiased in the development of facts. In the case before us, even though Claimant's representative may have been contentious, the hearing officer's conduct was clearly beyond the pale of acceptability. In the initial hearing the hearing officer interrupted Claimant's witnesses on over thirty occasions, attempting to exclude their testimony, we think grossly improperly. He attempted to answer questions put to Carrier witnesses and generally ex hearing officer was also in error when he refused to testify upon request of Claimant's representative. Contrary to Carrier's contention that a hearing officer may not testify w that the hearing officer was acting a,; prosecutor, judge, jury and witness, we think that such position is erroneous when he is called by Claimant; Claimant would be estopped from that defense under such circumstances. (First Division Award 20071) If Claimant feels that the hearing officer has relevant information to the fact finding fairness of the entire matter was further sullied by the arbitrary terminatiop of the "unjust treatment" hearing by the same hearing officer without permitting& Claimant to present her case.

 We regard the hearing officer's conduct in this case to constitute a serious breach of the intent of the parties as expressed in Rule 22. The right of a claimant to a fair and impartial hearing may not be impeded if the integrity of the grievance procedure is to be maintained. We will sustain paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the claim.

 Paragraph (4) of the Claim requests 7% interest on the total amoupt claimed. Although there have been some Awards of this Board providing for interest, the preponde agree with the thinking expressed in a recent Atsard (19953) which interprets a supreme Court decision upholding the "make whole" doctrine. Our powers are limited to the intarpretation of the provisions of the Agreement b=etveen the parties; we have no authority to create new rules or rights and rules of damages applicable to statutory law are not applicable to breach of contract such as we have here.
                    Award Number 20014 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-19933


        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 Fmployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and E,uployes 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 violated.


                      A W A. R D


        Paragraphs (1). (2) and (3) sustained. Paragraph (4) denied.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                                By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST.- ~ Exd'cutive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October 1973.