(Brotherhood of Railroad Sigaalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT CAF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood

Appeal from the discipline imposed on Mr. J. P. Backes as a result of a trial held on September 27, 1972.

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant, Signalman Joseph P. Backes, on February 20,
 1973 was assessed 15 days actual suspension following hearing and investigation into several charges as follows:



                  3. Failire to comply with instructions of foreman to gas up truck at Holban Yard;


                  Unauthorized trip to Morris Park;


                5. Having unauthorized items on truck VOIC."


The Organization appealed the discipline on several procedural grounds to wit: 1) Notice of Discipline not given to General Chairman per Rule 60 (c); 2) Violation of Rule 70 regarding "reinstatement of dismissed employes"; 3) Claimant denied "representative of his choice" in violation of Rules 25 and 59; and, 4) No copy of transcript was given to General Chairman by Carrier thereby again violating Rule 59. Additionally, the Organization asserted that no substantial evidence supported Carrier's imposition of discipline. The Organization apparently concedes that if, arguendo, the charges were proven in a procedurally proper fashion, then the quantum of assessed discipline was not unreasonably disproportionate. Carrier maintains that Claimant's procedu evidence supports the charges and the discipline was properly assessed.

 We turn first to the procedural points raised by the Organization and treat them seriatim. Our touchstone in such analysis must be the controlling Agreement and our own Circular No. 1. With respect to the alleged violations bf Rule 60(c) and 70 we find they are inadequate on their face. The latter cited contract provision has no bearing whatever in this suspension case and the former contains no requirement for notifying the
                    Award Humber 21237 page 2

                    Docket Humber SO-20695


General Chairman of the initial imposition of discipline but rather applies only to appeals. In connection with Rules 25 and 59 the Organization sees a violation in Carrier's refusal to postpone the hearing so that Claimant's private attorney could attend. This allegation turns on a definition of the term "duly accredited representative". The Agreement itself at Rule 25 is clear and express leaving no room for ambiguity and no need for interpretation in this cases<
        "When the term 'duly accredited representative' appears in this Agreement, it shall be understood to mean the regularly constituted committee (or any member or members thereof) of the organization recognized or designated as the representative, for the purposes set forth in the R as amended, of the employee covered by this Agreement."


Finally, the Organization on behalf of Claimant urges that Carrier committed fatal prejudicial error and denied Claimant a fair investigation because a copy of the transcript was not given to the General Chairman by the Carrier. The Organization finds therein a violation of both Rule 59 of the Agreement and Circular No. 1 of this Hoard. We cannot concur with this view. Whatever the wisdom and efficacy of such a practice we do not interpret Rule 59 as mandating Carrier to provide the General Chairman with a personal copy of the transcript. The Agreement is a product of bilateral negotiations, Rule 59 has no provision regarding such procedure and we may not usurp the negotiators' function by adding such a requirement through arbitral interpretation. We note additionally that the General Chairman was afforded opportunity to examine and study the transcript in Carrier's offices and that he did so during appeal of this claim. Nor can the Organization find comfort in Cir of the authorities cited by the able advocate for the Organization during our panel discussion. Each dealt with situations wherein information and evidentiary documents were withheld by a party from handling on the property and then offered for consideration de novo at the appellate level. In those cases we declined to consider such evidence nor would we hesitate to do so decline in future cases of such clear failure to abide by our Rules. See Awards 2556, 8068, 11812, 12942 and 13029. But these authorities do not find a parallel in this case and the failure to provide a personal copy of the transcript is not tantamount to withholding of evidence in violation of Circular No. 1.

 Turning to the merits of the case, the record does support a finding that Claimant failed withou directions of his supervisor. In our judgment the first four (4) charges cited supra are supported on the record before us. We do conclude that the fifth charge of possession of unauthorized items was not fully proven because no nexus of ownership, dominion and control or knowledge of presence was ever drawn between Claimant and the items in question. But leaving aside that charge the imposition of 15 days suspension for the other proven offenses is not arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. We shall deny the claim.
                    Award Number 21237 Page 3

                    Docket Number SO-20695


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1976.