(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company:

 (a) On August 3, and August 11, 1973 the carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly rule 60 (revised), during investigation of Ldr. Sigmn., D. C. Stuckey, and subsequent discipline assessed to him.

 (b) Carrier be required to clear Mr. Stuckey's record and remove discipline wrongfully assessed to h

OPINION OF BOARD: Subsequent to investigation, Carrier assessed a
 twenty (20) day deferred suspension against Claimant concerning an asserted failure to file, timely, an accident report. The Organization alleges certain defects in the handling of the investigation.

 Rule 60 requires that investigations "·..will be conducted by a supervising officer of the Signal Department." In addition, the rule specifies that the investigation will be held within seven days from date of alleged offense or after information of the alleged offense has reached the supervisor - and that the employe will be advised of the supervisor's decision, in writing, within seven days after completion of the investigation. It is contended that
















Mr. Maybee
Would you like to postpone the investigation?

 Mr. Hansen
I don't feel we should postpone it, we have a Supervising officer of the Signal Department prese
Mr. Maybee
Just to keep the record clear Mr. Hansen it was stated earlier that Mr. Sorensen is a witness therefore he cannot also conduct the investigation and be the interrogating officer.

 Mr. Hansen
Mr. Morrill is present in the building, he is the Assistant Signal Supervisor.

 Mr. Maybee
We could postpone this investigation pending Mr. Snyder's return to Oe·lwein or we could continue it and I would conduct the investigation.

 Mr. Hansen
We have come one hundred and fifty 'ome miles and I don't
 feel that we have always There still should be
 a Signal Department Officer conducting the investigation.

 Mr. Maybee
Mr. Hansen, I will explain to you the Division management on the Division. We have a Division Ma under the Division Manager there are four Assistant Division Managers.

 Mr. Hansen
Yes, I am very familiar with that.

 Mr. Maybee
Your protest will be entered into the record Mr. Hansen, if you do not wish to postpone the investigation at this time we will ccntinue it as it is.

 Mr. Hansen
Yes, I would agree to continue it."


Based on the foregoing, we are unable to find a violation as it pertains to the identity of the Investigating Officer.

 Concerning the failure to hold the investigation in a timely fashion, the question presented centers around the time the Supervisor became aware of the alleged offense. The Claimant refers to his 7:15 a.m., July 16, 1975 notification to his Supervisor as the incident which triggered the time element, however, there was reasonably aware, at that precise moment, of a potential violation. Accordingly, we feel that the investigation was held in a timely fashion.

 The record does not substantiate the allegation that the decision was not rendered in a timely manner.

        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

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: .~. 42,

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of April 1976.