(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

(A) The Carrier violated current Signalmen's agreement Rule 700 when Signal Foreman Tucker was disciplined (30 days suspension to commence November 26, 1973 and end December 25, 1973, both dates inclusive) without first being given an investigation. Rule (700) of the current Signalmen's Agreement states in part and I quote: (A) an employee who has been in the service more than sixty (60) days shall not be disciplined or dismissed from service without first being given an investigation, end of quote. Mr. Davidson states in his letter I have a letter from Mr. Tucker that he sent to Local Chairman Denny A. House stating that Mr. L. E. Johnson got him to sign a letter on Nov. 12, 1973 with promise that he would not be taken out of service, would only be ten days (10) probation with no time lost. Mr. Tucker further states in his letter that about 4 p.m. on November 26, 1973 Mr. L. E. Johnson called him and asked Mr. Tucker to meet him between Cheater and Dupo at which time he, Mr. Johnson, gave him the letter that he had been taken out of service that day for 30 days,

 (B) Signal Foreman Tucker be paid at his Signal Foremans rate of pay, an amount equal to that which he would have earned had discipline not been improperly assessed. ,Carrier's file: G 225-649/

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a Signal Foreman, signed a statement wherein he
 admitted that he committed certain offenses in violation
 of Carrier's operating rules and waived formal investigation. Although there
 is some dispute about the conversation leading to the signing of this docu
 ment, the basic facts are otherwise not in dispute. Claimant was assessed a
 thirty day suspension by Carrier; however in the middle of that period he was
 awarded a disability pension, thus effectively reducing the Claim period to
 November 26 to December 11, 1973.

 The sole issue herein is whether Claimant had the right to waive the investigative hearing and as a corollary did Carrier have the right to discipline Claimant without a hearing. Rule 700(a) of the Agreement provides that an employe shall not be disciplined or dismissed from service without first being given an investigation.

 Petitioner argues that Rule 700 is clear and allows for no exceptions; investigations will be held. Further, it is contended that employee have no inherent rights, except via the Agreement and can make no individual bargains
                  Docket Number SG-21108


with Carrier to abrogate that Agreement. Petitioner cites a series of Awards which provide that individual employes cannot enter into separate agreements with Carriers which would in any manner abrogate or modify the terms of the applicable Agreement.

 Carrier asserts that Rule 700 guarantees an investigation for the benefit of the employe and the employe has a right to give up that investigation right when it is ap
In a directly related case, Award 18468, involving the same Carrier and another Organization, we found that the signing of a waiver was voluntary and did not deprive that Claimant of any rights. We said: "It has thus been long settled that an admission of guilt obviates the necessity for a hearing" (see also Award 2339 and Fourth Division Award 983).

 The key concept in this dispute is that relating to the purposes of the investigation provided in Rule 700. The investigation is for the sole purpose of determining whether or not the employe is guilty of a charged violation of certain rules; that he has violated the rules, the purpose of the investigation has been fulfilled and there is no We concur with the reasoning expressed in the Awards cited by Petitioner, relating to the impropriet and Carriers; however these Awards have no application to the issue before us in this dispute. An individual employe must remain free to exercise his own judgment with respect to his own guilt or innocence; the Agreement does not abrogate that right.

        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.

                  Award Number 21183 Page 3

                  Docket Number SG-21108

                  A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                    "^~- NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                    'gy Order of Third Division


ATTEST: .
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of August 1976.
        Dissent to Award No. 21.183, Doc'.:et No. S,^r-21108


Avsrd No. 21183 has accomplished nothing but to perpetuate the error of the precedent upon .inich it relies. Relying upon erroneous precedent, it can be no better than the precedent.

 Rile:- ouch as the present Rule 700 were ~,·ritten to protect employes from their cn:.rn ignorance as well as from the venom of an e.^.npioyer. In the pre_ent case, it !rill never be lsovm ,.,hether or not to ClaJr_aa was a victim of either o`' both peril,^, because ttie ?'ajori±y has -rx1tct1 the Raspondent Carrier relief frcm its agreement with the Pesitioning L-.plcyes.

                                          U r. y


                                  W. h'. Altos, Jr. Labor Member