(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier disciplined Messrs. L. D. Riley, R. L. Neilson, M. L. Satterfield, J. Nowitzke, R. L. Turner, T. L. Hays, M. O'Keefe, S. R. Wilkins, M. G. Lowry, N. D. Marlow, S. R. Bourg, L. E. Langley, R. D. O'Keefe and G. C. Dodson by suspending them from service on various dates in May, 1974 without benefit of the investigation and other procedural stipulations of Rule 34 (System Files M-214-46 and M-214-47).

 (2) Each of the claimants identified above shall now be reimbursed for any loss of compensation (Rule 34-d) resulting from the aforesaid violation.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimants are all regularly employed trackman
 who had been in service over 60 days and whose
 applications for employment had been approved. The claimants were
 advised by the Foreman and Assistant Roadmaster that the length of their
 hair did not meet Carrier's standard 6f grooming. They were given five
 days in which to meet the standard arid were allowed to continue work
 during the five day period. At the end of the five day period, all
 having failed to meet the standard, each was advised they would be held
 out of service until they had complied with the carrier's grooming
 standards. They were also advised that they could return to work when
 they had complied with the grooming standards. A11, except one, stayed
 out of service for varying lengths of time until they had complied.
 The one exception complied without losing any time. Each returned to
 work when he had complied.

 It is the position of the employe-claimants that holding them out of service was in fact a discipline, suspension, "without benefit of investigation as provided in Rule 34(2)" of the Agreement, which provides, among other things:



The position of the Carrier is that mere refusal to permit an employe to work until he complies with prescribed standards for his position does not constitute discipline.

 The validity of the grooming standards was not attacked on the property or in the record and is not an issue before the Board.

 The Claimants cite a Second Division Award, Award No. 3070, as precedent for their position in this case; however, the facts in 3070 are at considerable variance with the facts before us here. In Award No. 3070, the Employes (1) were notified by written notice of the grooming standards and that they "must comply", (2) they were subsequently advised by letter they were not complying and (3) if they did not comply the railroad would "take disciplinary action." Subsequent to the letter, the Claimant in that case tried to comply by having his hair cut twice, neither time meeting the standards in the opinion of his supervisors and he "was removed from service . . . for being in violation of the standards." Claimant was on the date removed from service advised in writing to report for a disciplinary investigation. The claim was that the Claimant "was unjustly withheld from service and unjustly dismissed from service following the investigation." The question decided by that Board was "did the company have a valid rule and if so was the rule properly applied." These are not questions in this case.

 There is also in the record before us a discussion of another instance with another employe, one D. L. Smith, but this was not brought up on the property and is not properV in evidence and cannot be considered (Awards 16849, 20214, 14417, 21058, and many others).

 The question we must decide is whether the mere refusal to permit one to work because he does not meet standards established for the service is of itself discipline.

        There is a long line of precedent that it is not.


Here the men were told they were not in compliance with an established standard. The men at the same time were told they would be scheduled on when in compliance. The record fails to reveal any time limit in which to comply or give any inference of any discipline for failure to comply.

 On the facts in this record, Claimants were not suspended from service as contemplated in Rule 34(a). They were merely held out of service for violation of a regulation, (the reascnableness of which is
                      Award Number 21647 Page 3

                      Docket Number MW-21447


not in issue in this case), pertaining to the Claimants' work requirements. In this sense the men were not disciplined. (Third Division Awards 11323, 14172, Second Division Award 5902 among others).

        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 aver the dispute involved herein; and

        The Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A .R D


        All Claims dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST.
      r

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of August 1977.