(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company

(a) The Fort Worth and Denver Railway Company, hereinafter "the Carrier", violated the Agreement in effect between the parties, Rule 28 (a) and (b) thereof in particular, by its action in assessing discipline in the form of fifteen (15) days' suspension against respective Claimant Train Dispatchers H. W. Whitehouse and K. C, Vandaveer, 13, 1973 following formal hearing held July 19, 1973. The record of said formal hearing fails to support Carrier's charges of rules viatations, contains e of prejudgment, failure to comply with time limits prescribed and failure to provide material witnesses, thus imposition of discipline was capricious, arbitrary, unwarranted and rights in the procedures required in industrial due process.

 (b) Carrier shall now be required to rescind the discipline assessed the respective Claimants, clear their employment records of the charges which provided the basis for said action, and to compensate them for wage loss sustained due to Carrier's action.

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimants were notified to appear for investigation
 concerning Extra 6502 being cleared without all of the
 orders addressed to that train, Subsequent to investigations, both Claim
 ants were suspended from service for a period of fifteen (15) days.

 The employes contend that the mandatory time limits for holding an investigation were disregarded by Carrier. We note that Claimants raised this matter at the investigation. We also note that a basis for the postponement of the hearing, bey the unavailability of one of the Claimants due to a scheduled vacation. While this Hoard has upheld the rigid application of time limit rules; at the same time, we have recognized that employes may not defeat the orderly administration of the Agreement by that Carrier's actions, concerning the scheduling of the hearing, do not require a dismissal of the charges.

 It is clear that the train in question was cleared with 11 train orders. The crew heard a conversation on the radio which appeared to come from another train. They established radio contact and discovered that there


was an opposing train about five (5) miles distant. When the crew contacted the Claimants (on-du Order 54 was in effect - concerning the opposing train. The twelfth (12th) train order (#54) had not been previously delivered.

 Our review of the transcript of the investigation has indicated to us that Carrier produced substantive evidence to establish that Claimant Whitehouse deviated from appropriate procedures concerning the handling of Order 54. The employes have contended that the procedures themselves can lead to the results demonstrated here. But, Claimant Whitehouse was an employe with considerable experience, and we feel that he could have complied with instructions, but
Claimant Vandaveer was disciplined for his failure to report the violation. He attempted to show that he made appropriate notification; but we feel that the record is to the contrary. We cannot condone his "oversight" of taking a copy of th off duty. His plea that there is no "time limit" for rendering a report is not persuasive.

 Finally, we consider the employes' contention that the Carrier erred by not calling certain witnesses - which demonstrated a prejudgment of the issues. We do not agree. The evidence of record supports the findings of get. To sustain the employes' contention here would require us to engage in certain speculations of potential testimony when the record fails to present any reasonable basis for said speculation.





That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Lmployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction aver the dispute involved herein; and








ATTEST:

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1976.