PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Consolidated Rail Corporation (former Lehigh
 Valley Railroad Company)

 STATE4_7NFT CF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood,

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement as revised, may 1, 1955, Rule 35, and the Railway Labor Act, when, on December 21, 1974, it dismissed from the service of the Carrier, Elise Wynne, who had been taken out of service on December 9, 1974, while representing another employee, in Ms. Wynne's capacity as Local Chairman of Lodge off:, BRAG The suspension and subsequent dismissal of Local Chairman Wynne was arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and witho
(b) The Carrier will reinstate Claimant Elise Wynne to the service of the Carrier with seniority
(c) The Carrier will. compensate Cla=imant Elise Wynne for all wages lost, co.mmencing December 9, 1974, when she was taken out of service, until such time as. she is returned to the service of the Carrier.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On December 9, 1974, at approximately 2:00 p.m.,

messenger at the Carrier's Metropolitan Freight Agency (br'A) in Newark, New Jersey. He was to deliver packages of mail to two separate locations some distance apart from th had been transported by J. Krolik, General Agent at the IFA,using his own car. Wortolek expected the same arrangement for the afternoon. He located Krolik in the general office area of the 7PA, who advised him that he would be unable to transport him and that Wortolek should, therefore, plan to make the deliveries using public transportation. Wortolek complained that the bundles were too large and too numerous to handle, pecially considering the necessity of using public tramsportation.

 Krolik, who had senior supervisory responsibility at the M!A, left the conversation to consult with R. Morey, the Carrier's Supervisor of Stations, -whose official duty station was Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, but who had the FA, as well as other Carrier facilities under his overall supervision, and who was visiting the DMA at the time. Morey was physi- , C°lly situated in Krolik's office, which was adjacent to the general Office area. Concurrent with Krolik's departure from the general office


area, 7ortolek, on advise of a fellow employee, sought cut the Cialmant Elise Wynne for assistance. Wynne was a Rate Clerk - Bill Clerk at the N·iFA and also Chairman of the Local Protective Committee of Local Lodge No. 64 of the Union. In this capacity, she represented the interests of Union members in grievance matters, among other things. At Wortolek's behest, Claimant left her office and followed him back to the general office area, arriving about the same time Krrolik did from his consultation with Morey. A discussion having to dispatch all of the mail at one time. Krolik again consulted with Morey and upon returning to the general office area further discussion with the Claimant centered around the apparent agreem Wortolek wa:s to deliver two bundles to one location and returrn to the hEPA. The discussion was joined by Morey, who directed the Claimant to return to her duties as a clerk, that the matter was resolved. The Claimant thereupon asserted that she was functioning as Local Chairman and was handling a grievance. Morey, who had taken charge at this point, advised that there was no grievance, the matter had been settled,and that she would not handle Union business on company tine. Morey repeated his directive to her several times, to which her response was either "I hear you" (Carrier's version) or "I hear you, but I am representing this man" (Union's version). The Claimant also asserts that she instructed the acting payroll clerk, E. Gietter, to mark her off the payroll in order that she could perform Union business; carrier representatives deny hearing such a remark. After making the directive several times, Morey sought out .'·=. Bonner, Freight Agent from Wilkes Barre, Pa.,who hapyened to be in the i·7FA on other business, and requested that he join him and witness further discuss i-epeated his directive to the Claimant that she return to her office, adding that if she did not do so, she would be taken out of service. (The Claimant had continued in discussion ;with Krolik during Morey's search for Bonner.) Upon the Claimant's failure to comply, Morey instructed K.-clik to prepare a let which he did as follows:

            "You are hereby notified effective December 9, 1974, 2:20 p.m., you are hereby held cut of service.pending hearing.


            You are charged with failure to follow a direct order from a supervisor.


            You will be notified of time and date of hearing."


                                                      l

                                                      - i

                                                            i


                        Award ilamber 21763 pa=e 3

                        Docket Number CL-21794


The Claimant endeavored to discuss this matter with Morey relative to returning to work following Krolik's disciplinary action, but was advised that she was out of service.

        The entire incident transpired in about fifteen minutes.


The hearing was held on Tuesday, December 17, 1974, before Hearing Officer id. J. Nocitra in Newark, P1. J.

 As a result of this investigative hearing, the Claimant was advised by letter dated Dec=ember 21, 1974, that she was dismissed from service for her_actions of Dece`ber 9, 1974.

 The Carrier's dismissal decision was not altered by the appees by the Union that followed the De
The rule cited in this case is rule 35 - Cc=ittee :work, as follows:

        "Employees elected as Duly Accredited Representatives employed exclusively by the organization, shall- be considered on leave of absence and in the service of the railroad, and shall retain their seniority rank a^.d rights if asserted within thirty (30) days after the r°lease .from excepted employment.


        Other lily Accredited Representatives ef to employ es will be granted necessary leave of absence to properly represent the interest of employes covered by this agreement."


        The Carrier's primary rationale as to annrororiateness of action

against the Claimant is that she refused a direct order from a super-visor,
 not once but a total of five times; that she was without authority to mark
 herself off the payroll; that she did not request permission from her super
 visorfor time off for Union activities; that no grievances e: =seed - only
 a minor work dispute; that, if the Claimant felt Wcrtolek had a grievance,
 she should have processed it by the provisions of Rule 33 (which sets out
 -rocedures F_°or preparing grievances in writing); that even if a minor work
 dispute ad existed, it was settled by the time Morey interceded and thus
 the Claimant had no further business as Local Chairan: that the Claimant
 :,as afforded a fair and impartial investigation; and that, considering her
 past record, the dismissal was for just cause.
                      Award Number 21763 Page 4

                      Docket Number CL-22791


The Union's objection to the Ca-rrier's dismissal actions are based on ccntentions that: the notification of charge was insufficient, imprecise and indefinite; the Claimant's rights to function as a duly appointed union representative was denied her; and, the Hearing Officer was prejudiced and biased.

 Certain of the events of December 9, 1974, are in dispute, and their identification is worthy of mention: the Carrier says the Claimant encouraged Wortolek to carry but one bundle of mail, she denies this; the Claimant avers th carrying two bundles to one of the two destinations with a return to the FAA before performing the other, the Carrier officials imply they did so instead; witnesses for the Claimant testified at the investigation that (1) they understood t an representing this man"(Wortolek), (2) they heard the Claimant advise the acting payroll clerk tha business, (3) one of the Union's witnesses testified that Krolik was making work difficult for Wortoiek and that that was his reason for suggesting that Wortolek seek out his Local Chairman; when Morey returned tc the general office area overhead to say (of Mr. Bonner), "Now I see you have your own. witness."

 We. are reminded at the outset that this Board is not to substitute its authority for that of th evidence in support of tae charge. The Carrier would argue that this is a case primarily of an employee refusing to follow a direct order from appropriate management. Sde find it not that simple. We find that the Claimant was in the process of carrying out her responsib_lity as a duly aut~orized Union representative. It should be remembered that Wortolek sought her out for his own. reasons and asked her assistance. The Carrier suggests no grievance existed - merely a minor work dispute. That is not for the Carrier to decide. If an employee feels an action or impending one affects his wages, hours or working conditions,he has a right to raise it within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement." Wortolek did precisely this. At his behest, the Claimant represented his interest. Her communication was with the proper person - his immediate supervisor. Whether the issue was resolved or not would clearly rest with the two individuals who were dealing with the matter firsthand. A relationship in collective bargaining depends upon the ability of individuals who must deal with p=r ill-serves collective bargaining to put a stop watch on such activities. The line of demarcation between when an employee is performing Union business and when not is not so easily defined. In this case, perhaps another minute or so would have resolved the matter.
                      Award Dumber ?1763 rage j

                      Docket Number C1-21794


                                                          i


Tae Carrier argues that if the Claimant wished to leave her duty post to represent Wortolek, then she should nave gained permission to do so. This contention flies in the face of the essence of a Urion's first responsibility to its members - to represent their interest under the collective bargaining agreement. Additionally, it surely cannot be argued that by leaving her post the Claimant placed the operation in jeopardy.

 We are not unaware of the probable dispute in personalities that existed here. It is possible that the Claimant, as a newly elected or selected Union Chairaan,may have been exuberant _o an excess in this matter. it can also be adduced from a reading of the record that a ne:;ative action in the first ins reaction from the Claimant and this built into a situation from which neither the Claimant nor Ieorey could extricate themselves. While we note that Union witnesses to the excan~-e between the Claimant and Morey unanimously asserted that '.her is possible that her attitude in doing so might have been more constructive, and the statement attributed. to her upon ..orey·'s return with Bonner (":Too I see you have your oim witness") might well have been provocative. These attitudinal shortcomings on the Claimant's part might have warranted a repr·.mand or other su offense. The Carrier, having stood or. its record for almost three years, a=parently has rot seer. f=t to consider that alternative,

 Insofar as the auestion of whether or not the C1a-mart received an impartial and fair hearin-, it is our understanding that such a trib"Lnal is established :"or the purpose of permitting both parties to fully develop their oositiens before a neutral. We are satisfied that there was mcre than

                                              r ~,

one issue, position or point of view in this dispute. A reacin_ c~ ~.·.e report o_' the investigative hearing leaves the clear impression that it was convened to acccmplish only and precisely what was set out as its purpose on the cover sheet:
 "In connection With Determining I·'.=s. -Wynne's responsibility, if any, -:n failin to crjm-Iy with direct order -given to her ay the S:1Ne'TV1.sCr
of Stations on December 9, 197u.t (:;mphasis added in part)
                                                          I


                  Award Number 21763 Page 6

                  Docket Number CL-21794


                                                          I


We find that the record does not show just cause for dismissal of the Claimant. We find that the engaged in carrying out Union activities.

 The Claimant is to be reinstated with full back pay, less any and all earnings, compensation and other remuneration she has received from other sources over the period of her separation from the Carrier.

          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 violated.


                      A W A R D


          Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST:TENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division.


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary

                                                          I

                                                          i


I Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 14th day of October 1977.