(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, and Jervis Langdon, Jr., ( Trustees of the Property of Penn Central Transportation ( Company, Debtor

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective February 1, 1968, particularly Rule 6-A-1, when it assessed discipline of 15 days record suspension on B. R. Comerzon Car Control Clerk, River Rouge Yard, Detroit, Michigan, Detroit Division, Northern Region.

 (b) Claimant B. R. Comerzon's record be cleared of the charges brought against him on January 11, 1972.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This is a discipline case in which the Claimant was charged
 with participating in an unauthorized work stoppage and
 being observed walking a picket line. Following hearing and findings of guilt
 on the charge, the Carrier assessed a 15 day record suspension against Claimant.

 The Petitioner seeks to have the discipline removed from Claimant's record on the grounds that: (1) the form of the notice of charge violated Claimant's due process rights; and (2) the "exact offense" charged was not proved by the hearing evidence.

 The charge challenged by Petitioner on due process grounds reads as follows:

We find no due process deficiency in this charge. It gave clear notice that Claimant's conduct in respect to a specific incident was to be investigated. This gave Claimant sufficient information to prepare his defence and to avoid surprise


We come now to the contention that the "exact offense" charged was not proved by the evidence. The hearing record shows that, from about 6:30 a.m. to 8:20 a.m. on January 3, 1972, an unauthorized work stoppage occurred at Carrier's River Rouge Yard Office, Detroit, Michigan. At 7:30 a.m. on January 3, 1972, the Claimant Control, Machine Clerk, River Rouge Yard Office. He testified at the hearing that, on the morning of January 3, he was unaware that there was a work stoppage or that there was a picket line at the yard office entrance. Later, though, he said that at 6:20 a.m. he read a message about the work stoppage which had been sent over the teletype by a union official. He then called a local union representative "to find out what it was about and asked if he should come down to find out what this was all about." The subject of Claimant's awareness of the work stoppage was further pursued in the following testimony:



























                    Docket Number CL-20164


        "Q. Well, what was it all about?


        A. It appeared that there was a picket line up. It appeared.


        Q. How didit appear?


          A. Just like any other picket line. I saw a sign and there was a large amount of people standing. They weren't going up in the office.


        Q. What did the sign say?


        A. I didn't read it."


In addition to Claimant's testimony two Carrier witnesses testified as follows:

        "Mr. J. D. Bolyard, Trainmaster


          "Q. Did you, during the morning of January 3rd, return to the picket line?


          A. Yes, at approximately 8:30 A.M., I returned to the picket line to inform the employees holding the picket sign to contact Mr. Bowen, that the strike had been terminated.


        Q. Were you accompanied by anyone?


          A. Yes, I was accompanied by Mr. B. H. Estes, General Car Foreman at River Rouge.


        Q. Did you at this time see Mr. Comerzon at the picket line?


        A. Yes, I did.


        Q. And what did you observe him doing?


          A. Mr. Comerzon was with other clerical employees in that area, one of which was carrying a picket sign.


          Q. Was Mr. Comerzon carrying a picket sign or handling out literature?


        A. I did not observe him doing this, no."


        Mr. B. H. Estes, General Car Foreman


          "Q. During the morning of January 3rd, did you again return to the picket line?

                    Award Number 20143 Page 4

                    )ocket Number CL-20164


        "A. Yes, I did, about, approximately 8:20.


        Q. And were you accompanied by anyone?


        A. Mr. Jack Bolyard, Trainmaster.


        Q. Upon returning to the picket line, did you observe Mr. Comerzon?


        A. Yes, I did.


        Q. What did you observe him doing?


        A. He was walking with the rest of the clerks on the picket line.


          Q. Was he at that time, or at any time, carrying a strike sign or passing out literature?


        A. No.


        Q. Were there strike signs posted at that time?


        A. Yes, there were."


From our study of the foregoing we can only conclude that the Claimant bore witness against hims It is clear that he was aware of the work stoppage when he read the teletype message at 6:20 a.m.. He was thus forewarned that the course of non-involvment was to leave the area after completing his tour of duty at 7:30 a.m.; yet, he remained in the area, by his own admission, to see "what it was all about." It is true that one of Carrier's witnesses failed to put Claimant on the picket line in clear, unambiguous terms; however, Mr. Estes unequivocally stated that Claimant was walking on the picket line at about 8:20 a.m.. The testimony of Mr. Estes, coupled with that which Claimant himself gave, provides substantial evidence of record to support the Carrier's findings of guilt. Consequently, on the whole record, we find no basis for disturbing Carrier's determination and we shall therefore 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 20143 Page 5

                    Docket Number CL-20164


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 15th day of February 1974.

 I