(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Washington Terminal Company

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective July 1, 1972, particularly Article 18, when it assessed discipline of dismissal on H. M. Ware, Station Cleaner, Washington, D. C.

 (b) Claimant Ware's record be cleared of the charges brought against him on March 10, 1975.

 (c) Claimant Ware be restored to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, and be compensated for wage loss sustained in accordance with the provision per annum, compounded daily. Claimant also to be made whole for any money he was required to spend for medical and hospital services, or other benefits which would otherwise have been covered under Traveler's Group Policy GA-23000.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On March 10, 1975, Claimant was the incumbent of a regular
 position of Station Cleaner, Washington, D. C. His tour
 of duty was from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and his work week was from Monday to
 Friday, with rest days of Saturday and Sunday.

 On March 10, 1975, Claimant was notified by letter to report for a hearing at a specified time and place on March 14, 1975, "at which time you will be charged with:



Claimant was notified by letter dated March 19, 1975, from the Engineer Fixed Property that he was dismissed from service.

 The position of the Claimant in this appeal is that the following questions should be decided, (1) whether or not the Claimant had a fair and impartial hearing; (2) whether the discipline imposed was warranted, and (3) whether or not his record should be cleared and he be compensated for all monetary loss sustained during the period out of service.
                    Docket Number CL-21596


In regard to the first point in issue,the Agreement (Article 18 - Discipline Hearings) provides an employe may not be discharged "without a fair and impartial hearing." As a part of that hearing, "At a reasonable time prior to the hearing the employe will be apprised in writing of the precise charge against him." (Underlining the Board's). The written charge in this case is limited and precise, "failure to complete assigned duties." The Claimant argues the proof went beyond the specific charge and this Board must limit its review only to the facts falling within the charge, citing Third Division Awards 19642 and 19357 where evidence went beyond the precise charge and punishment was given out. In Award 19642 (Lieberman) it is said:

        "It is fundamental to the disciplinary process under the Agreement that Claimant be permitted to defend himself against the charges by the Carrier; this is patently impossible if he is not apprised of the precise attributed him. Taking the letter of suspension and the record of investigation together it is clear that the Claimant was not afforded due process.


            "In Award 14778 we said:


            'No man can defend himself against a charge to him unimown. Certainly it is not due process to shovel anything and everything into a record and leave to the uninhibited hearing officer finding what misconduct he feels the employe has committed. Issue must be joined before hearing."'


Award 19357 (Cole), in which a Claimant was charged under one rule and disciplined under another, is of the same view. With both decisions this Board is in accord.

 In this case the evidence in the record on this precise charge is limited to one instance at 9:30 a.m. in regard to an assignment which the Claimant had until 4:00 p.m. to complete. The evidence with this exception was not responsive to the charge and the discipline cannot be sustained.

 Having so concluded we must address ourselves to the Claimant's request as to "whether or not" Claimant's "record shall be cleared and he be compensated for all monetary loss sustained during the period out of service."

 There are two portions of the Agreement (Article 18 - Discipline Hearings) applicable to this, the pertinent parts of which are here quoted:

        "(e) If the final decision decrees that the charges against the employe are sustained, the record shall be cleared of the charges; if suspended or discharged, the employe will be

                  Award Number 21426 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-21596


        returned to former position with seniority unimpaired and paid for all wages lost.***" (Underlining Board's).


        "(h) Deduction of Earnings in Discipline Cases: It is recognized that where an employe is dismissed or suspended from service for cause and subsequently it is found that such discipline was unwarranted and the employe is restored to service with pay for time lost, it is prop in other employment will be used to offset the loss of earnings. This understanding is not intended to change existing rules or practices which now provide for deduction of other earnings in discipline cases."


Claimant urges this Boardto go beyond this language,which is clear and unambiguous, not only to be c loss, "Claimant also to be made whole for any money he was required to spend for medical and hospital services, or other benefits which would otherwise have been covered under Traveler's Group Policy GA-23000."

 There is long established precedent for the position that claims for interest or reimbursement for health and welfare benefits which are not included in the negotiated rules agreement are not proper matters for consideration by our Board. Many awards are cited regarding our jurisdictional limitation to strict interpretation of the contract as written when its terms are clear and unambiguous. Awards 12558, 21182, 20711, 20707, 20429, 20383, 20375, 20276, 20013, 19894, 19815, 19616, 19615, 19003, 18471 and many others.
        It is well to bear in mind Referee Dorsey's dictum in 12558:


        "We may not inject our predilections as to what is fair, just and equitable. Nor can we engage in speculation as to what might have been in the minds of the parties, but not evidenced in the Agreement as executed or otherwise proven."


We find (1) no interest due on wages lost or (2) that Claimant "be made whole for any amounts he was required to spend for medical or hospital service" during the period between discharge and reinstatement.

 We find the Agreement was violated. In accordance with the terms of Article 18 of the Agreement,the Claimant's record shall be cleared of the charges and the employe returned to his former position with seniority unimpaired and paid for all wages lost.
 ~.i _r
        'LL6'C JUgnaqag 3o XEp qaga STqq °s-fouTIII `osa0TqD qE paqaQ


                          lza~a30aS anT:;nOasg

                          1~7~OV VIP ·ZS37zV


    uoTSTATQ paTqy 30 aapzo 6g

    QZTVOH T.NaWZSfifQV QVOYIIVd lIVDIOI-TVu


°pasog
 aqq 3o uomuTdo aqq uT paqvqs se quamaaz2V aq4 30 ST aIOT4zV 03 pa4TmTI
 =aTaia0 aql 30 6ITITqaTT pup uoiqaaTIqo 'pauisisns urcslo

                        Q TI V M V


                      ·paqaToTn sam 4uauaaa2V aqq aayy


A
                      pus :uTazaq panTonuT aandsip aqq zano uoiq

    -o7psTZlIC sail pzaou iuamqsnCpV aq4 3o uoTsmnTQ sTq4 4aqy


      !i£6T `IZ aunf panoadds ss °qoV zoqs7 6amITag aqq

      3o su-lusalu aqt uTqqTm saAoldma pus lalaaaO Alanlqvadsaa a=s aqnd

      -sip s~q3 uT panlonuT saAOTdmg aql PUP 2alaa?O 9Ill 1LIU.1


                  :nuTSaay Tsso panla:a salq.xud ayq taqy


        :spToq PUB spuT3 'a0uapTna aq4 IIa pus pao0aa aToqe ail; uodn 'pzaog ;uauusn[pV aql 3o uoTSTATQ pzlqs aqy :go,7I~3


                      969TZ-70 saqumH 4aqooCl

      17 aaaa .aa mn zeM

                        ge q u pe