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

1. The Carrier acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unjust manner and violated the agreement between the parties when on February 24, 1978 it dismissed Clerk M. L. Agee from the service of the carrier.

 2. In view of the foregoing arbitrary, capricious and unjust action of the Carrier, it shall now be required to:







OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant had been in Carrier's service about eight
 years. On February 21, 1978, she was notified to
 appear for an investigation to be conducted on February 23, 1978, to
 determine her responsibility, if any, for her alleged negligence in the
 mishandling of an engineer on January 25, 1978, when she allegedly failed
 to mark the engineer up for his job when he reported, resulting in the
 payment of a penalty time slip to the engineer.


The investigation began, as scheduled, at 9:00 A.M., February 23, 1978, after which it was determined that there was an error as to the date of the alleged occurrence. The investigation was terminated and rescheduled for 2:00 P. M., February the claimant changing the date of the alleged incident to January 22, 1978. Following the investigation, the claimant was dismissed from service on February 24, 1978.

 The Organization contends that the re-scheduling of the investigation, with a corrected notice t incident to January 22, 1978, placed claimant in double jeopardy. The Board does not find such contention persuasive. When it was determined that the original notice of charge was in error as to the date of the alleged occurrence, the first investigation was terminated. The second notice was issued with the correct date, and a second investigation was held involving that date. We do not find such procedure in violation of the Agreement. The discipline mist stand or fall on the basis of the second investigation.

 The Board has carefully reviewed the transcript of the second investigation, together with the submissions of the parties, and find that some discipline was warranted. It is clear that the engineer involved did report on January 22, 1978, but, for some reason, claimant failed to mark him up. Claimant was reinstated April 25, 1978. Thus, the discipline imposed amounted to about sixty days suspension. We find, considering the nature of the offense, that such discipline was excessive. A thirtyday suspension would have bee discipline imposed be reduced to a thirty-day suspension, and that claimant be compensated for all time lost in excess of thirty days.

 The Organization has presented no Agreement support for Parts (c) and (d) of the claim, and they are 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
                    Award Number 22741 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-22777


        That the Agreement was violated to the extent shown in Opinion.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained to the extent indicated in Opinion and Findings.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: PA-e~

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of February 1980.