(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk and Western Railway Company (Lake Region)

1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on October 11, 1972, they arbitrarily and ten (10) days actual suspension.

 2. The carrier's action was unjust, unreasonable and an abuse of carrier's discretion. The discipline was assessed without any proof whatever of the charges made.

 3. Carrier shall now compensate G. G. Karamanos for each day held out of service, plus two hours and twenty minutes punitive rate for time spent attending hearing, with seniority and all other rights unimpaired.

 4. In addition to the money amounts claimed herein, carrier shall pay claimant an additional amount of eight percent (8%) interest compounded annually.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was Third Shift Messenger at Carrier's Bison Yard
 at Buffalo, New York, working from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.
 He was assessed a ten day suspension for coming to work late and being insub
 ordinate, following an investigation.

 Carrier's witnesses at the investigation testified that Claimant had arrived at his work station in the Bison Yard at between 11:10 and 11:15 P.M. Claimant denied that he was late claiming to have been in the Yard itself at 11:00 P.M. At the investigation the issue of the place to which employee was to report was raised by Petitioner and never resolved, leaving the issue of the tardiness in doubt. The record contains unrefuted testimony by a Carrier supervisor that Clai being relieved for the alleged tardiness. Additionally, there is at least the implicit admission of tardiness by Claimant in the testimony that he said he was late for "personal reasons", reported by two Carrier witnesses. The Organization argues that the sta he was relieved from duty and hence are not relevant to any disciplinary action. We do not agree. Comments to a supervisor within moments of a disciplinary action on company premises are clearly within the province of the normal employee-supervisor relatio


is sufficient evidence to justify Carrier's finding of guilt on the insubordination charge in th above, at least some doubt as to the charge of tardiness.

 We are seriously concerned with the conduct of the investigation in this case. The hearing officer's actions significantly prejudiced Claimant's right to a fair and impartial investigation. The actions we question include the following:

        1. The hearing officer injected two new issues into the investigation which had not been part of to sign the notice of investigation and an anonymous threatening phone call.


        2. The hearing officer persistently lead Carrier's witnesses in a manner indicative of a least pre-judgment. For example the hearing officer in questioning a Carrier witness said: " Mr. Meade do you feel that Mr. Karamanos as a result of this alleged altercation was boisterous, insubordinate, uncivil, rude or immoral?"


        3. The hearing officer, without apparent basis, attributed reluctance to attend the investigation and reluctance to answer a particular question to Claimant at the outset of the investigation.


        4. The hearing officer did not permit cross examination of Carrier witnesses until all of them h


        5. The hearing officer instructed Claimant's representative to stop cross-examining one of Carrier's witnesses stating among other things: "You are doing nothing but questioning the integrity of this supervisor."


On innumerable occasions we have discussed the importance of the integrity of the investigation of alleged infractions. The nature of the disciplinary process itself part of the hearing officer. The Board cannot condone manifest bias as exhibited by the record of th for lack of due process, we choose instead, under all the circumstances of this particular case, to reduce the discipline imposed (see Award 19591). Accordingly we shall sustain th record suspension. Claimant shall be made whole for the time lost, but not including pay for time sp the Agreement and also was not handled on the property.
                  AVBLrd Number 20092 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-20223


        FINDII4GS:'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 violated in accordance with the Opinion.


                        A W A R D


        Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLISTNTNT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        AT17EST: ~~ Id~G(.Gt~ Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of January 1974.