(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

 (a) The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, Monon Sub-Division, hereinafter referred to as "t its action in assessing discipline in the form of dismissal following a formal hearing held Monday,
(b) Carrier shall now rescind the discipline assessed, clear Claimant's employment record of the cha and to compensate Claimant for wage loss suffered due to Carrier's action.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This is a discipline dispute in which Claimant was dismissed
 from service for alleged improper issuance of a train order.
 Claimant was a Train Dispatcher on the former Monon property of Carrier. The
 Monon was merged into Carrier's organization in 1971; the incident herein occur
 red on September 11, 1973.

 Both Petitioner and Carrier allege time limit violations by the other side. Petitioner claims that Carrier did not confirm the decision reached at the conference held on November 15, 1973 until December 28, 1973 which was considerably in excess of Carrier alleges that Petitioner did not submit its intention to file a submission with this Board un too late, in accordance with the thirty day appeal period specified in Article VIII (c) of the Agreement. After careful evaluation of the arguments and authorities cited, it is concluded that neither position has merit. First with respect to Carrier's argument on the appeal to this Board, we find no provision in the Agreement (contrary to provisions in many other Agreements which set forth specific time limits) containing a time limit within which a claim must be submitted to a tribunal f to relate to appeals from lower to higher officials and have nothing to do with time limits in bringing disputes to this Board (see Award 6863). The argument presented by the Organization is equally without merit. The Claim was denied by Carrier's highest officer in timely fashion on October 29, 1973; the subsequent conference was he was reaffirmed. The confirmation of the conference, dated December 28, 1973,


does not fall within the purview of Article VIII (c); further there is no penalty provision applicable to this circumstance. In addition, it must be noted that Petitioner waived its position with respect to the timeliness of Carrier's confirmation letter by continuing to handle the case on its merits alone, thereafter.

 Since the investigation itself was not flawed, the dispute must be examined on its merits. There is no dispute that Claimant did not secure the signatures of the conductor and engineer as required by Rule 219 of the L & N operating rules, which became effective on the Monon Subdivision on August 1, 1971. The only significant defence raised was that the Chief Train Dispatcher had previously issued instructions that it would be unnecessary to obtain signatures of conductors and engineers to annul their work orders. It must be observed, however, that evidence in support of this defence was not submitted until some time after the investigation was completed, and hence is inadmissable. However, it is noted that Carrier admitted that the signatures of conductors and engineers on train orders was not required in the Operating Rules of the Monon Railroad.

 It must be concluded that Carrier adduced sufficient evidence at the investigatory hearing to justify its conclusion that Claimant was guilty as charged. The only question remaining is whether the penalty of dismissal was arbitrary or capricious. It must be observed that Claimant, with twenty five year's of service, had been used to the practices on the Monon Railroad even though he had been examined on the rules of the L & N. Under all the circumstances, the penalty received a disability retirement and information from Carrier that if his condition improves he woul age 65. It is our conclusion that the discharge be converted to a disciplinary suspension to run fro received the disability pension; he shall not receive any pay for time lost.



That the Carrier and the Employee 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






        Claim sustained to the extent indicated above.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:-124/0. Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1976.