(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( repress and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company ( (Pacific Lines)


(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the Clerks' Agreement extant when it dismissed i,:r. J. D. Keithley from se='Vice ffoi1C'viinS investigation at which it failed to prove its charge; and.
(b) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated Rule 49 of the Agreement when it rendered an untimely decision contrary to the express terms thereof; and,
(c) The Southern Pacific Trans_wortation Company shall now be required to allow Mr. Keithley eight (8) hours' compensation at the rate of Telegrapher Clerk September 8, 1975 and each date thereafter until restored to service with seniority rights, insurance rights, hospitalization rights, and all other A
OPITIIOi1 OF BOARD: Claimant was dismissed from service for failint to
 protect his assignment as reauired under Bale 810,
 which reads in hart


Tae Claimant's allegation that he was unaware of the requirement to work for the fu11 · Carrier's jud_=-meat that he knowingly failed to report or. the day in question is well founded.
                  Docket =umber CL-2139h


Severn;; of the penalty is fully sup=orted by Claiaant's disciplinary history, wnich includes dismissal- and reinstatement on a leniency basis for a similar offense.

 On a procedural basis the Organization claims that the Carrier failed to follow Rule 49, Appeals and Representation, in the provision which states:

          . . .The officer receiving notice of such protest ,rill render decision^_ ;rithin fifteen days, or if the notice includes request for conference, render decision. within fifteen (1j) days from date of conference, such times subject to extension by mutual agreement . . . ."


Tae Organization Pile;-es that Carrier's Superintendent pr-judged to°_ ^atter,in response to the Organization's ampeal~,by stating in a letter prior to the requested conference,,-, '~1/ do pct feel my decision aras prejudice /sic7 or too severe and your request for multiple CCmpensatien until returned to service is denied.

 T-_ Suaeriaendent had also issued the dismissal notice. It might have beer: well for him not to respond initially to the Organization in the negative manner quoted above. The Board, nevertheless, does not find this an err timely reply in denying the claim.

          FIPIDIPIGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds aid holds:


          That the parties waived oral nearing;


That the Carrier and the :~nployes involved in this disaate axe respectively Carrier and 17hplcyes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as aprroved June 21, 193':
                    Award i7rumber 21919 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-21091E


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction, over the disuute involved herei-.: and

          That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A 'd A R D


          Claim denied.


                          iRTIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST'.= BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


          ATTEST xecutive Secretary


          Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1978.