NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 Award Number 20428
 i THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-20505

 Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
 1
 (Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes

 i




i

          1. The Carrier violated the Clerk's Agreement, when it suspended Clerk E. Vokral from actual ser October 6, 1972.


          2. Claim that Clerk E. Vokral was not advised of the precise charge against him as required of Rule 25 of the agreement between the parties.

i

          suspending service null and decision therefrom


          4. Claim that Clerk E. Vokral be compensated the exact amount of, his losses, or any and all wage losses sustained, plus interest at the current rate, on the amount o


          OPINION OF BOARD: Rule 25 states, in pertinent part:


          a"Alettpeloystathgthwpirtehciasne iohern

          made ...." (underscoring supplied)

          After a thorough review of the record, the Board determines that

          the single issue presented for our determination is whether or not the Sep

          tember 25, 1972 Notice of Investigation satisfied the above cited Rule. The

          Notice stated:


                  "Arrange to report to the Superintendent's Office, General Office Building, 6900 South Central Avenue, at 9:30 A.M. on Thursday, September 28, 1972 for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility, if any, in connection wit you calling and placing Yardman P. Robertson on the 3:00 P.M. West Sub-Office switchtenders assignment on September 16, 1972 without sufficient time off duty for this assignment."

                Award Number 20428 Page 2

                Docket Number CL-20505


        "If you desire a representative, please arrange."


        Claimant contends that the Notice was improper because:


        "In the instant dispute, Carrier's notice falls far short of being a clear and precise charge. It instructed Claimant to report for a hearing 'for th sponsibility, if any.' It does not say to Claimant that it thought him guilty of an offense, On the contrary, the notice says, in effect, that the Carr not know who is responsible but intends to find out. In short, the effect of the notice was to tell Claimant that he would participate in a general inquiry rather than a trial."


        Initially, we cite with favor Award 17837:


        "That letter charged the Claimant with 'apparent viola-

        tion '. The letter is not vague. The charge is

        adequately precise. Certainly, it is more reasonable to

        advise the Claimant of an 'apparent' violation. The evi

        dence at the Hearing determines whether there was or was

        not a violation of the rule."


A Notice of Investigation is not a criminal complaint, nor is it designed to be a basis for technical loopholes and/or legalistic avoidance. Nonetheless, a Notice must advise a Claimant that he is subject to investigation for a dereliction o and 17154.

 While Claimant did contend, at the investigation, that the Notice did not specify any charge, the record fails to show that the Notice violated the guidelines stated
In this regard, we have fully considered Award 18606 concerning these same parties, and interpreting the same Rule 25. The Notice of Investigation under considerati than the Notice here under review. Citing a number of the Awards mentioned herein, the Board concluded that the Claimant was clearly advised of the specific or "precise" charge against him.
                Award Number 20428 Page 3

                Docket Number CL-20505


We are unable to find that Claimant did not understand the nature of the charges; that he was mislead or prejudiced; or that he was not able to prepare a defense. Further, we are unable to state that Award 18606 is palpably erroneous. We will 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;

 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 a4&4 PA0Z4t,,., By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of September 1974.