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

1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it held clerical employees Orville Whitehead and Gerald Wolfe off of their regular assignments on April 7, 1976, in order for them to appear as witnesses at an unjust treatment hearing on behalf of fellow employee. D. G. Claxton.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate clerical employees Orville Whitehead and Gerald Wolfe for eight hours pro rata pay at the established rate of their assigned positions for April 7, 1976.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This case is similar to many heretofore disposed of
 by the Board where the Organization has called
 for employes as witnesses in support of its position, and where the
 Carrier accedes to the presence of employes, but without compensation.
 Notwithstanding the Petitioner's arguments to the contrary, the
 pertinent Agreement is devoid of specific provisions calling for
 compensation for employes called by the Organization as witnesses.
 While that factor would appear to be dispositive of the claims raised
 in this case, this Board will be remiss if it does not bring attention
 to certain aspects of the execution of the hearing itself: The
 circumstances out of which this dispute arose involved the declination
 by a supervisor of an employe's contended rights of displacement.
 The affected employe grieved the action and a hearing was convened
 per Rule 27. The hearing officer was the supervisor ixmolved in the
 denial of the employe's request. At the outset of the proceeding,
 the hearing officer made himself unavailable for examination by the
 affected employe or his representative, and yet used this same
 authority to dispute on the record a claim by the employe:




(H/0) Mr. Claxton, do you have a representative?

 (Emp) Yes.





(Emp Let the record show that on Carrier's Exhibit A,

(Emp) Approximately 9:00 a.m. of the same morning.

 (Emp Let the record show that in 35 minutes Mr. Vierrether



                    Docket Number CL-22308


    (Emp And I would add the record shows clearly that this

        Rep) determination was made within 35 minutes after receiving notice of Mr. Claxton's desire to displace on Position #4.


        (H/0) In the interest of establishing the sequence of events . . . .


    (Emp You have stated that as hearing officer you will not

        Rep) testify. If you want to testify, I have several questions to ask.


    (H/0) I do not feel I am testifying for or against Mr. Claxton.

    I feel that within my position as hearing officer that.

    establishing procedures of this hearing and then stating

    the sequence of the event leading up to the hearing

    is proper. Carrier's Exhibit A was received at 8:00 a.m.

    I do not feel this is testifying either for or against

    Mr. Claxton.


It was after this set of events that the Organization asked for testimony by the Claimants. The hearing was recessed until the following day at which time the Claimants appeared and gave testimony for 15 and 18 minutes, respectively, for which they were required to mark off the job for 8 hours. It seems sufficiently clear that whatever case the Organization would be able to establish would have to be based upon testimony of such witnesses; it could hardly demand testimony by the hearing officer and apparently could not foreclose the hearing officer's putting on the record whatever he saw fit to state.

 We are well aware that it is not within the province of the Board to consider questions of equity; we are equally aware that questions of "due process" are not properly before us. We are obliged to look to the provisions of the Agreement and to the record of tae case at hand and will not do otherwise here. While we may have some reservations over the events leading to this point, we find no basis under the Agreement to affirm the Claims herein.
                    Award Number 22427 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-22308


        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 not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claims. are denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: &Y0 ~ ~z - r

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1979.