(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and ( Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk and Western Railway Company

1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on May 2, 1973, it conducted a formal investigation and, subsequently, without just cause dismissed Tel Carrier on May 11, 1973.

(a) Clear the service record of Telegrapher Robert Wheeler of the charge and any reference in connection therewith.

 (b) Promptly restore Telegrapher Robert Wheeler to duty with seniority, vacation and other rights unimpaired.

 (c) Pay Telegrapher Robert Wheeler the amount of wages he would have earned absent the violative act, less outside earnings.

 (d) Pay Telegrapher Robert Wheeler any amount he incurred for medical or surgical expenses for himself or dependents to the extent that such payments would have been paid by Travelers Insurance Company under Group Policy No. GA-23000 and, in the event of the death of Telegrapher Robert Wheeler pay his payments he may have made in the purchase of substitute health, welfare and life insurance.

 (e) Pay Telegrapher Robert Wheeler interest at the statutory rate for the State of Ohio for any
OPINION OF BOARD: This is a discipline case in which the Petitioner
 seeks to have the discipline of dismissal vacated
 on the grounds that: (1) the hearing was not timely held; and (2) the
 hearing evidence does not support the dismissal action.

 The charge against the Claimant, as stated in the Carrier's notice of charge dated April 12, 1973, reads as follows:












The Petitioner's argument on lack of timely hearing arises from the Carrier's postponement of the hearing from April 19, 1973 to May 2, 1973. This change in hearing dates caused the hearing to occur more than ten days after the Claimant was charged on April 12 and, hence, the change, on its face, appears not to conform with Rule 27(b). However, in his hearing testimony, the Claimant stated that: "...I was detained in jail and a postponement had been requested.,." Also, without contradiction, two Carrier witnesses ma requested in Claimant's behalf by his brother. Thus, the record affirmatively shows that Claimant, o hearing postponement and, therefore, we find no merit in the post-hearing protest about untimeliness of hearing.


The Petitioner's attack on the hearing evidence is also without merit. The Claimant admitted his absence from duty, as alleged in the charge, and also admitted that he did not personally receive permission for the absence from a supervisor. He said, however, that permission had been obtained through an unidentified person who called Carrier on his behalf on March 23 and also that permission had been requested by his brother in a talk with the Trainmaster. The Carrier employee who received the call from the unidenti within one hour of Claimant's reporting time; consequently, the person was told that permission to be absent could not be granted. The Trainmaster stated that the Claimant postponement of hearing, but not about being off from work. In this state of the record, we conclude that Carrier's action is supported by substantial evidence of record and, accordingly, the Carrier's discipline should not be disturbed. We shall deny the claim.



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








        ATTEST ~ Lrxecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of June 1974.