(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 60 days suspension on J. H. Hamilton, third trick Crew Dispatcher at Washington, D. C., Chesapeake Division, Eastern Region.

(b) Claimant J. H. Hamilton's record be cleared of the charges brought against him on or about July 9, 1972.

(c) Claimant J. H. Hamilton be compensated for wage loss sustained during the period out of serv
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was advised to attend an investigation con
cerning an allegation that he left his assignment with
out being properly, relieved. Subsequent to the investigation, he was sus
pended for sixty (60) days. As a matter of leniency, the final thirty-four
(34) days of the suspension were deferred under a probationary condition.

Initially, Claimant urges that the investigation was neither fair nor impartial for a number of reasons. We have fully considered the transcript of the investigation with this Referee participating, requires a showing that a Claimant's rights are fully protected. However, our examination of the entire record in this case demonstrates that Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial investigation, as required by the
The record supports the conclusion that Claimant did leave his assignment prior to being relieved. In this regard, the Carrier notes that Claimant's position of third trick dispatcher is one of three dispatcher positions which comprise a continuous operation. The dispatcher has prime responsibility for crew calling, and the position may not be vacant.



Claimant's stated reason for leaving his assignment, prior to being relieved, was because he was "tired." Prior Awards of this Board have considered valid reasons for departing an assignment prior to being relieved (see, for example, Award 16744), but they have not condoned a departure in this type of a circumstance.

The Board is unable to state that Carrier's action was arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the record.





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








                          By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: Gi1GI,-

          cutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 25th day of October 1974.

r:aj