(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The discipline of dismissal assessed B&B Carpenter Robert N. Plum was arbitrary, capricious and without just cause (System File D-14-78/MW-13-78).

 (2) B&B Carpenter Robert N. Plum shall be reinstated to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered, all in accordance with Rule 28."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a Bridge and
 Building Carpenter. On March 21, 1978, he was served notice of a formal investigation:







The investigation was conducted on March 27, 1978, at which the notice to the claimant was read. The claimant was represented by the General Chairman of the Organization. At the beginning of the investigation the following exchange occurred between the hearing officer (Mr, Spurling) and the General Chairman (Mr. Ochoa):
                    Docket Number MW-22959


      "MR. OCHOA:


    Mr. Spurling, before we go on with this, in the notice to attend the investigation I note that he is charged with 'failing to comply with the requirements of General Notice and Rules of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company.' That is pretty vague. Is he being charged with failure to comply with all the rules or is there a specific rule that he is being cited with?


      'Tfft. SPURLIIG:


    Mr. Ochoa, the caption of the investigation refers to the General Notice and Rules of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company and, if appropriate, all or a portion of the General Notice will be read into the record of the investigation.


      " hfft. OCHOA:


      And, as to the rules, I have been asked by Mr. Plum to represent him and I cannot adequately represent him if I don't know the riles he is being charged with and I feel that in that respect we cannot properly represent him and give him a fair and impartial investigation not knowing the specific rules he is charged with.


      I'M SPURLING:


    We will enter your objection."


Later in the investigation, the General Notice and Rules of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad were read into the record by the hearing officer. This document consists of twenty-one paxagraphs. Some of the paragraphs cover numerous matters that could be the subject of an investigation in themselves. After the reading of the document, the following conversation was entered into between the General Chairman and the Hearing Officer:

      "MR. OCHOA:


      Is he being charged with a violation of all these rules?

                    Award Number 22910 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-22959


      "MR. SPURLING:


    Mr. Ochoa, as Chairman of the Investigating Board, I am not at liberty to answer questions directly. I believe that the caption of the investigation specifies it is being held in connection with Mr. Plum's alleged failure to comply with the requirements of General Notice and Rules of The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company on or about 2:00 A. M. Friday, March 10, 1978."


Throughout the handling of the dispute on the property the Organization continued its contention that the charge was vague and in its submission to the Board contends that by charging claimant with a violation of all the rules, as it did, the Carrier was "obviously engaged in a 'fishing expedition' for an alleged violation:" We note that the letter of dismissal sent to claimant on March 29, 1978, followed the same general language of the notice of investigation, without reference to any specific rule.

 While the applicable agreement does not require that the charge be "precise", it does require that the employe be given a "fair and impartial hearing," and it is generally recognized that a "fair and impartial hearing" requires that the accused be informed of the nature of the charge made against him in a form definite enough so that he may adequately prepare a defense. It is the opinion of the Board in our present case that the charge was entirely too broad to meet such requirement. (See Awards 13443, 17592).

 We will sustain the claim to the extent outlined in Rule 28(d), based on the charge being vague and indefinite, without passing upon the merits of the dispute.

        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 22910 Page 4

                      Docket Number MW-22959


        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained is accordance with Opinion and Findings.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July 1980.