( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station

          ( Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

                        (Burlington Northarn Inc.


          STATEMENT OF CIAIM: Claim of the Burlington Northern System Board of

                        Adjustment (GL-7481) that the Carrier:


          1. Violated the rules of the March 3, 1970 Rules Agreement by discharging Mr. Mark E. Lammimn, A


          2. Shall now reinstate Mr. Mark E. Lammiman to the service of the Railway Company with all right record, compensating him for all wages lost plus six percent interest compounded daily and recovery of any lose suffered se a result of the termination of his coverarte under Group Policy GA-23000 in accordance with its terms.


          OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was dismissed from service, after two

          separate investigations were conducted by the Car

          rier on November 21, 1972. The first investigation dealt with the

          alleged use by Claimant, on June 2, 1972, of Carrier's postage for a

          personal piece of mail addressed to another Carrier employee at

          another Carrier business address. The second investigation involved

          alleged abusive and insubordinate conduct on the part of the Claim

          ant on September 22, 1972.


          Concerning the first investigation, the Organization contends that the Claimant was formally charged under procedural Rule 56 (A) on July 14, 1972. Rule 56 (A) states in pertinent part:


                "... The investigation shall be held within seven (7) calendar days of the date when charged with the offense or held from service ...."


          The Organization argues that the investigation should have been held within the prescribed seven days as provided for in this rule; and having failed to do so, the Carrier was precluded from holding an investigation on the same charge o


i
                  Award Number ^_0351 Page 2

                  Docket Number _L-20545


The record shows that an attempt by the Carrier to serve proper notice on the Claimant was unsuccessful on the July 14, 1972 date, because the Claimant was not at his residence and was on a 90 day leave of absence. The Carrier's Service of Notice on the Claimant on November 16, 1972, conforms The investigation of November 21, 1972 took place within the seven day limit of Rule 56(A). Rule 56.contains no limitation on the Carrier concerning a time restriction under which the Carrier must call for an investigation after receiving knowledge of an alleged violation of rules.

 Concerning the substantive charges of the first investigation, that of one incident of use of Ca use, it is abundantly clear that Carrier has supported its finding of Claimant's guilt with substantial evidence.

 Concerning the second investigation, dealing with alleged use of abusive language and insubordination, the Organization contends that the investigation was im in the notice of investigation were known to the Carrier on September 22, 1972; and if an investigat been held seven days from the date Claimant returned to work after his leave of absence. As previously stated, Rule 56 (A) places no such time. restriction on the Carrier to initiate an investigation.

 There can be no doubt but that Carrier, in regard to the matters in the second investigation, has supported its charges with clear and substantial evidence. However, under all the unique facts and circumstances of this entire record, including the transcripts of both investigations, the Board is of the view that a permanent dismissal from Carrier"a service was not warranted in this case and is excessive.

        Based on the entire record the Board finds:


        (1) That discipline was warranted; and


        (2) That permanent dismissal was excessive.


The Board awards that the Claimant shall be restored to Carrier's Service with seniority and other rights unimpaired, but

 without pay for lost time. There is no agreement support for Claimant's claim for interest or re
                Award Number 20351 Page 3

                Docket Number CL-20545


        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 wit 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 discipline imposed was excessive.


                    A W A R D


Claim sustained to. the extent indicated in Opinion and Findings.

                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTWNT nnARn

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST:_k ~Vk/*/. Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July, 1974.