(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk and Western Railway Company



1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on May 1, 1975, they arbitrarily and capriciously dismissed Mr. R. L. Brown.

2. Carrier's action was unjust, unreasonable and an abuse of Carrier's discretion.

3. Mr. Brown shall be reinstated with all rights and privileges unimpaired and paid for all lost time.

4. In addition, Carrier shall pay Claimant twelve percent (127.) interest on all monies due.

OPINION OF BOARD: On March 20, 1975, Carrier advised Claimant to appear'
for investigation to determine responsibility in con
nection with a train passing a "stop and stay" indication.

Subsequent to the investigation, the Claimant was dismissed from service.

The Claimant has raised a number of asserted procedural defects in the handling of the investigation - alleging that the officer who assessed the discipline was biased, witnesses were not sequestered, the charges were not specific, the hearing was not held in a timely manner, etc. Based upon the totality of the record, we are inclined to find that Claimant has not presented a showing that he wa of the case.

The evidence shows that Claimant gave a yard crew permission to pass a "stop and stay" indication, without first receiving authorization from the dispatcher. While we feel that Claimant's actions were improper, and that discipline was warranted, we have also noted that there were certain extenuating circumstan utter disregard for his responsibilities. In addition, we have noted the Claimant's many years of service.

Based upon the entire record, we are inclined to restore Claimant to service with retention of seniority and other rights, but without compensation for the period of Award Number 21512
Docket Number CL-21572

Page 2



That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an
That the discipline was excessive.

A W A R D

Board.

Claim sustained to the extent set forth is the Opinion of the

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTI-MT BOARD
By Order of Third Division

ATTEST:


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1977.