(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employer ... PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The dismissal of Carpenter Shelton Partee was without just and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to the offense with which charged (System File 1-R-119-k/il-68o-I2o-199).

 (2) Claimant Shelton Partee shall be reinstated with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage lose suffered."

 OP=ft OF BOARD: At the time of the occurrence giving rise to the dispute
 herein, claimant was employed by the Carrier as a Bridge and Building carpenter, having entered the service of the Carrier as Bridge and Building helper on Septmber 2, 1975. On January 8, 1979, claimant was advised of formal investigation:

By agreement with representatives of the Organisation, the investigation was postponed to February 1, 1979, at which time it was coaenced. After several witnesses had testified on February 1, 1979, the investigation was recessed to permit the claimant to have other witnesses present. At the same time the claimant was suspended iro 1979, at which witnesses requested by the claimant were available. On April 11, 1979s claimant was notified of his dismissal from Carrier's service.


Following claimant's dismissal, claim was filed in his behalf by the representative of the Organization, requesting claimant's reinstatement with compensation for usual manner on the property up to and including the Carrier's highest designated officer of appeals. Failing of adjustment on the property, the claim as set forth herein was filed with this Board by the Organizaon November 27, 1979.

 In its appeal to the Hoard the Organization requested that in the event the case were deadlocked and a referee assigned, the Organization desired a hearing before the Board with the referee present. Hearing on the dispute, with the referee present, was held, commencing at 11:00 A.H., November 18, 1980. Representatives of the Organization and of the Carrier were present at such hearing. The claimant was also present and made presentation in his behalf.

 The contention has been made throughout the dispute that the notice of the investigation, heretofore quoted, did not meet the requirements of Article V, Section 3, of the Agreement, which reads:

Rules 2, 16 and 17 of General Rules for the Guidance of Employee, cited in the notice of investigation, read:









                    Loc~mt N=aber Mss-23297


            "16. Employes must not be careless of the safety of themselves, or others; they must remain alert and attentive and plan their work to avoid inJnry.

        - -Iaployes must not be indifferent to

            dntyy insubordinate, dishonest, immoray quarrelsome or vicious.


            Employes must conduct themselves in a manner that sill not bring discredit to their fellow employes or subject the any to criticism or loss of goodwill.


            "17. Employee must not enter into altercations, play practical jokes, scuffle, or wrestle on company property.


            Employee must devote themselves ezclusi-rely to their duties during their tour of duty.


            Gambling, playing games, reading newspapers, books or use of a television while on duty is prohibited."


The rules cited were read into the investigation, and claimant stated that he was familiar with each of them. As the notice of the Investigation cited the roles intolied, the alleged fail claimant, and the dates involved, the Board considers it sufficiently precise to enable the claimant sad his representative to prepare a defense. The notice met the requirements of the Agreement.

 The Hoard finds no violation of the Agreement because of Carrier suspending claimant itoa service on Fabrmry 1, 19'(9, after same of the vitnessea had testified, until such time as the investigation was concluded. Section 2 of Article V of the Agreement permits such action.

 The contention has also been made that Carrier officials should have discussed the charges with claimant prior to the formal investigation. We find no Agreement rule requiring that officials discuss the charges prior to the formal investigation. It has often been held that disciplinary proceedings are not crimina not apply.
                    Award Number 23116 Page

                    Docket Number Nb1-23297


The Board bas carefully examined the. rather lengthy transcript of the investigation afforded claimant., which has been made a part of the record, has studied the briefs submitted by the parties, and listened to the arguments presented. at the hearing on November 18, 1980. We find that the investigation was conducted in.a fats and impartial manner. Claimant was present throughout the investigation, was represented, and was permitted to introduce witnesses in support of the charge against claimant. While there were conflicts between the statement of claimant and other employes, it is not the function of this Board to weigh evidence, attempt to resolve conflicts therein, or to pass u;on the credibility of witnesses# There was substantial evidence of probative value that claimant w an employer. The claim vi11, therefore, be denied.

 FINDIHG3: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon
 the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 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, 19311;

 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 dented. r C

                                        h:~ _. .


                            RATIOUL RAMDAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Divisign,


                                    41


ATTEST:
        Mecutilb Secretary


Dated at Chicago, I111wis, this 15th day of January 1981.