(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Company

(1) Carrier failed to adhere to the Agreement between the Parties when, on March 2, 1979, Utility Clerk Stephen P. Edwards was improperly assessed discipline of dismissal f
(2) As a result of such impropriety, Carrier shall reinstate Mr. Edwards to its service with all rights unimpaired and compensate him for all wage losses suffered since March 2, 1979, the date held from service.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed by the Carrier as Utility Clerk. On
 January 20, 1979, he was notified by Carrier's Manager
 Terminal Services, Barr Yard, Riverdale, Illinois:





The investigation was postponed by agreement and completed on February 23, 1979. A copy of the transcript of the investigation has been made a part of the record. We have carefully reviewed the transcript and find that none of claimant's substantive procedural rights was violated.


        The Organization contends that that portion of Rule 47(a) reading;


            "The investigation shall be held within ten (10) days from the date when charged with the offense or held from service ...."


was violated as the last date mentioned in the letter of charge was January 8, 1979, and claimant was notified of the charge January 20, 1979, with investigation scheduled for January 26, 1979.

 In our opinion, the Organization has misconstrued the rule. The ten-day time limitation applies from the date of the charge, not from the date of the offense.

 The Organization also complains because the same officer preferred the charge, conducted the investigation and rendered the decision. We have not been referred to any Agreement provision as to who shall prefer charges, conduct the investigation or render the decision. Furthermore, the procedure complained of has been upheld by numerous decisions of this Board.

        The Organization contends further;


            "There is little excuse for the managerial personnel of the Carrier to ignore the principle that discipline investigations must be handled akin to a trial court ...."


Disciplinary investigations are not criminal proceedings. The Board has held;

            "Disciplinary proceedings are not court proceedings, where strict adherence to rules of evidence is required ...." (Third Division Award 19993)


and

            "An investigation is not a criminal proceeding and strict rules of evidence do not apply." (First Division Award 18119)


As to the merits of the case, the evidence is clear that the claimant fraudulently obtained doctors' certificates to justify payment of sick leave. Claimant admitted that he purchased the documents and that he was not treated by a doctor.

 There is no proper basis for the Board to interfere with the discipline imposed.
                        Award Number 23114

                        Docket Number CL-23266 Page 3


        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


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: iggz'geo6z~
 Execu ive Secretary

            Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January 1981.