(Brotherhood of Railuay, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (St. Louis-San Francisco RailAaay Company

1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on Iday 4, 1976, it unjustly and arbitrarily dismissed from its service, Mrs. Shirley Waxler, Clerk, biemp his,
2. Claimant was not advised of the precise charge as required by Rule 26. Carrier did not prove its charges and Claimant was not afforded a fair and impartial investigation as required by the rules; the investigation and decision resulting therefrom be declared null and void.

 3. Carrier shall compensate ".lrs. Wexler beginning Aoril 21, 1976, date Claimant held from service, anal continuing for each and ever,, work day thereafter until id: s. ivauer is returned to service with the Carrier. Compensation claimed shall be tat of the position to which assigned at the time of her dismissal or the rate assigned to any position which was denied to her a action in dismissin.- her from its service. The amount claimed is also subject to future .rage adjustments.

 4. Claim to also include any expenditures for insurance coverage which Mrs. Waxler i6 required t0 purchase for adequate coverage o=' -rself and her dependents a,. a result of Carrier's action.


CFI=0=1 0· 3CARD: Claimant was dismissed from service on ay 4,
 11076, for "·rulgar, profane, threatening, solent and dishonest statements" race to a Trainmaster and his wife, in violation of applicable portions of Rules 701, 702, a^_d 7o6.

 The Organization claims that the investigative hearing conducted by the Carrier :vas defective under Rules 26 through 31, especially that =onion of Rule 26 reading:

      The invest ~_=a_ion sha7.1 be held within seven days ^v-' the date whe^ charged with the offense or held

                t

      from service."


The hearing was initiated within the seven-day period. The fact that the hearing was recessed to an early date beyond the seven days, in order to have a nonemploye witness present, is not violative of the Rule. Further, the hearing notice was sufficiently Specific to apprise the Claimant of what was to be discussed.

 Nor does the Board _find the hearing officer in procedural error when, contrary to the Organization's wishes, he confined the questioning to the issues in immediate dispute.

 Serious questions of credibility were raised at the hearing, including the Claimant's complete denial of telephone conversations she was accused of having with the T-alnmaster and. h15 wife. It is not for the Board to resolve such questions. Suffice it to say that the Board finds .^.o reason to disturb the Conclusion o_' the Carrier, following the investigative hearing, that the conversation took place substantially as reported and that the penalty for such rule violation. :has not unreasonable.

 =1
    ITGS: The Third Livis on of the The Third ^ i Adjustment Board, u-Cc- the :.mole

    record and ail the evidence, finds and holds:


        That t'.^.e parties waived oral 'nearing;

                  Award Number 21921

                                .

                  Docket Number CL-21904.


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in "his dispute are respectively Carrier and -T~npioyes within the meaning o:' the ~aiiaay Labor Act, as approved June 21, 13934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement -*-as not violated.


                        A ·7 A R D


        Claim denied.


                          :Z~TIOiiAL RAILROAD ADJUST:I:-2:T B0'-RD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST
 Executive Secretary

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