aATIcRAL RAa.ROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-22432
William M. Edgett, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Inc.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Comaittee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Burlington Northern:
On behalf of R. E. Ogden, Signal Maintainer, headquartered at
Msadan, North Dakota, for reimbursement of twenty days' pay and removal
of suspension from his personal record while serving an unjust, biased
and illegal discipline when Carrier violated Rules 54-C and 53-A of the
current Signalmen's Agreement." CCarrier's file: SI-20
7/18/77)
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant has raised two procedural matters and
says that Carrier's failure to comply with the
Agreement in respect to them requires the Board to sustain the claim.
First Claimant asserts that the notice of investigation did
not meet the requirements of Rule 54-C which reads (in pertinent part):
"C. At least five (5) calendar days advance
written notice of the investigation outlining
specific offense for which the hearing is to
be given employe and his appropriate local
organization representative***. " Emphasis
added)
Carrier sent notice to Claimant which read:
"Attend investigation in the tra3amaster's
office at Mandan, North Dakota at
9:00
AM, MST,
March
16, 1977
for the purpose of ascertaining
the facts and determining your responsibility
in connection with a track motor car being struck
by Extra 5633 West at approximately 3200 feet west
of Mile Post
17
near Sweet Briar, North Dakota
about 10:140 AM on March
8, 1977.
Arrange for
representative and/or witnesses if desired, in
accordance with governing provisions of prevailing
schedule rules."
Award Number 22663 Page 2
Docket Number SG-22432
Two points are raised with respect to the notice. Carrier
failed to send a copy to the Organization, as required. However.
Claimant arranged for his representative to be present. The
representative was fYXly prepared, did not request additional time in
which to prepare and fully and ably represented Claimant's interests.
Under the circumstances the absence of written notice mast be held'
harmless to Claimant and the Organization.
C
laimant
also asserts that the notice did not meet the
requirements of stating a specific offense. No doubt the notice would
not suffice in a criminal proceeding. However, the Hoard has held that
it does not have to meet that standard. It clearly advised Claimant
that he was a party not a witness. It specified the event and pointed
out that his responsibility for it would be determined. The notice
met the requirements of the rule.
Claimant also takes issue with Carrier's denial of his
appeal, stating that it did not give a reason for the declination.
Carrier's response is that the letter incorporated the denial at the
previous step by reference. On this record, it must be concluded that
Carrier's denial was taken-as such.
FMIINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Hoard has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
MTIOML RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
H~ order of Third Division
ATTEST:
/~li~r/. l ~dd~
Dated at Chicago. Illinois, this 14th day of December 1979.