(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

1. The Carrier violated the effective Telegraphers' Agreement when, following an investigation on February 24, 1977, it assessed a five (5) day suspension from service against operator L. W. Young;

 2. The Carrier shall now compensate Mr. Young for all time lost as a result of this suspension and shall clear his record of the charges placed against him.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, an operator, was given a 5-day
 suspension from service following an investiga
 tion on the charges that at about 9:30 A.M. he:





The investigation was to develop all facts and determine Claimant's responsibility regarding the charges relative to Claimant's tour of duty on January 27, 1977.


Following the investigation, Claimant received a letter suspending him on the basis that:



Petitioner takes the position that Claimant was never charged with violation of Operating Idles 700 and 701, citing Carrier's denial letter of March 22, 1977, which reads in part as follows:





Petitioner maintains that Article 16(b) requires that the charge be precise and that the employe be advised in advance as to the charge. Petitioner concludes that Claimant was found guilty of violating Rules he was never charged with violating and that he was disciplined for violating these rules.

 Both parties, as well as the Labor and Carrier members of this Division have either referred to, or furnished many prior Awards bearing on the issues they deem relevant to our consideration of this
                    Docket Number CL-22420


case. The Awards cited or supplied embrace the following broad categories: The requirement that "exact" or "precise" charge(s) be filed; employes found guilty of violations not specified in the statement of charges; and the notice of charges need not contain reference to a specific rule or riles allegedly violated by the employe charged.

 We have carefully reviewed the numerous Awards called to our attention. They are, for the most part, distinguishable from the situation involved in the instant case in that either no charge was filed; or the charge was indefinite or vague in that the notice of investigation failed to specify the precise charge or nature of the complaint or alleged offense; or the charge referred to general company rules without indicating the specific acts or non-actions allegedly in violation of such rules or of specific transgressions under such rules; or that an investigation was to be held to determine cause and place responsibility without apprising the employe of the charge against him in connection with the incident under investigation; or that the employe was found guilty and disciplined on the basis of a transgression not originally charged; or charges based on violations containing many separate regulations without reference to a specific regulation; etc.

 In the case before us, Claimant was charged with three specific activities: reading a book while an duty; quarrelsome and vulgar discussion with a supervisor; and refusal to comply with the supervisor's instructions to put the book away.

 The discipline letter issued after the investigation found the Claimant guilty as charged (the three charges originally filed) and in violation of Operating Rules 700 and 701. Claimant was suspended for 5 days for violation of these cited Operating Rules.

        Rule 700 reads:


        "Every employe must be prompt and firm in the execution of his duty. But, at the same time, he must be civil and courteous. Civil, courteous, and gentlemanly conduct is demanded of all employes in their dealings with the public, their subordinates, and each other.

                    Award Number 22436 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-22420


        "Boisterous, profane, vulgar or abusive language is forbidden. Employes must not enter into altercation with any person, no matter what provocation may be given, but will make note of the facts and report to their immediate superiors.


        "Employes who are insubordinate, dishonest, moral, quarrelsome, or otherwise vicious, or who are careless of the safety of themselves, or others, or who do not have or fail to exercise good judgment will not be retained in the service."


        Rule 701 reads as follows:


        "Safety must be the first consideration of every employe. Employes must provide themselves with a copy of the Book of Safety Riles and must refrain from unsafe practices, not only as a matter for their own safety, but for the safety of others. They must be alert and attend strictly to their line of duty during the hours prescribed, and must not enter into undue conversation or discussion with others so as to detract their own attention or the attention of others from their immediate line of duty.


        "Playing or listening to radios, except railroad radios, reading newspapers, periodicals, or books other than those furnished by the company for their guidance, playing cards or other games by employes while on duty is prohibited.


        "Radios, other than company radios must not be connected up, or carried on cabooses, engines or in telegraph, agent's offices, or yard offices or similar places."


A reading of Rules 700 and 701 readily discloses that they clearly embrace the three charges included in Carrier's notice of charges, although they also deal with other conduct and behavior and proscriptions against certain designated activities.
                    Award Number 22436 Page 5

                    Docket Number CL-22420


In contrast to other Awards called to our attention in which employee were charged with one offense but found guilty and disciplined under a separate Bile, in the instant case the discipline letter found Claimant guilty as charged in the notice of charges and in violation of Rules 700 and 701. The three charges listed in the notice of investigation precisely described the nature, parties involved, and date of Claimant's activities to be investigated. They were furnished Claimant in time to enable him to prepare his defense. The investigation was postponed at the Organization's request. Claimant indicated he was ready to proceed with the investigation. Claimant and his representatives understood the basis of the charges. The notice of the charges was more specific in nature than the rules cited in Carrier's discipline letter, which found him guilty of the charges.

 Claimant testified that at the time of the incident, the Supervisor "asked me if I knew Nile 701 and I stated 'Yes'. I know Rule 701 and he asked me if I would put the book away. And I asked him for what reason. He said I was in violation of Rule 701."

 This statement by Claimant clearly indicates that he was aware of Rule 701 and its proscription against reading while on duty. By the same token, he was alerted by the Supervisor's question at the time of the incident that Rule 701 bore upon the specific charge(s) filed against him.

 Claimant was charged with specific acts, explicitly stated. He was notified of the acts and conduct complained of, and the time and place of their occurrence. The wording of the notice of investigation was certainly clear enough his defense. Claimant was not misled or prejudiced by 'the charges as filed. It is not necessary that a specific rule be set out in the notice.

 We would be inclined to sustain the claim if the charge in the notice of hearing merely alleged a violation of Rules 700 and 701, without any other specificity. But in the instant case, the charges were clear and specific, Claimant was clearly apprised of what he was being tried for; the alleged infractions were explicitly brought to his attention in writing; and he was found guilty as charged.
                    Award Number 22436 Page 6

                    Docket Number CL-22420


We construe the reference to Operating Rules 700 and 701 in the letter of discipline as a logical follow-up to the colloquy between Claimant and Supervisor concerning Claimant's knowledge of the Rules at the time of the incident. This is not a case in which an employe is charged with violation of one rule but found guilty of violating another rule and disciplined for the latter violation. Operating Rules 700 and 701 embody the specific charges included in the written notice of hearing to Claimant.

 The evidence supports the charges. The discipline assessed is not unreasonable. The Agreement was not violated and the claim is accordingly denied.

        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 -

        The Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied. -- = '-'


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~,
 dJfgdf1d 1gg1P!g-.w
        Executive Secretary


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