(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk Southern Railway Cosy

Carrier violated the Agreement when it unjustly suspended Yurek Hajdalenko, Extra Employee., Eastern Division, from the service of the Company, commencing September 9, 19TT, and ending October 8, 1977, a period of 30 days.

 For this violation, the Carrier shall now compensate Claimant Hajdalenko by paying him for all time lost as a result of this unjust discipline.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a Line of Read Extra Board Employe on Carrier's
 Eastern Division, was suspended from service beginning
 September 9, 19'/7 and ending October 8, 19','7, it being alleged that he had
 failed to properly perform his duties as Clerk-Operator. The particular
 charges cited by Carrier in this matter are as follows:

Organization contends that Carrier has failed to meet its burden of proof in this instant dispute, and that Carrier has completely and totally failed to prove or substantiate any wrongdoing on the part of Claimant. Thus, Organization argues that Claimant's suspension was unjust and arbitrary, and, therefore, improper. Further, Organization also submits that C'arrier's assessment of discipline in


not provided with a written statement of charges prior to his removal from service on the- ewning of September 8, 197T; and (2) Carrier's hearing oflioarfailed to render a decision within ten days following the completion of the investigatary hearing.
Carrier's basic position in this matter is that the incidents of September 5 and 7, 1977 clearly demonstrate that Claimant failed to properly perform his duties as Clerk-Operator and. that such evidence is sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof which is required of Carrier in disciplinary matters. Additionally, Carrier further maintains that since it (Carrier) has satisfied its burden of proof requirements, and since the degree of discipline which was assessed was " . . . fair, reasonable, and . . . not excessive j," then such discipline should not be disturbed. In related fashion, Carrier also argues that insofar as "Rule C-1(f) provides that an employe must be 'found blameless' in order for the discipline to be erased and the employe paid for the pecuniary loss sustained," since Claimant ". . . was proved guilty--certainly he was not 'found blameless'," then, according to Carrier, this instant claim must be denied.

        Regarding Organization's contention that Carrier violated

the procedural requirements of Rule C-1(a) of the Agreement, Carrier
 maintains that the Trainmaster's actions which have been cited as
 violative by OrEanization were bath proper and in accordance with
 ...~i~'.. ._ =:V `,..°-.,y-; f1:TU Ler that CaZTlcr ::i:Zl`~L:8 I==-1Cer'F. aECi510n
 of October 5, 1977 was rendered within the ten (10) day limit follow
 ing the September 29, 1977 hearing.

 The Board has carefully read and studied the complete record which has been submitted in this instant dispute, and finds that there is sufficient cause to warrant the rescission of Claimant's suspension and to substitute in place thereof a suspension of ten (10) days duration. The rationale for the foregoing conclusion is predicated solely upon the merits of this dispute since the Board can find no support whatsoever in the two (2) procedural arguments which have been raised by Organization.

        Regarding the merits of this case, despite Carrier's detailed

enumeration, description and reiteration of the various job duties which
 Claimant allegedly performed improperly, a thorough examination of the
 record fails to demonstrate with any degree of certainty that Claimant
 did, in fact, fail to properly perform all of the specific duties as
 charged. Moreover, there is sufficient reason to believe that Claimant
 was not completely responsible for a material portion of the cited dere
 liction. Because of these determinations, this Board is of the opinion
 that the penalty which was imposed upon Claimant in this matter was ex
 cessive and unreasonable, and, therefore, improper.
                  Award Number 23152 Page 3

                  Docket Number (T.-23186


In arriving at the above decision the Board has talon heedful. and judicious note of Carrier's arguments regarding the Hoard's authority to modify discipline as well as those arguments regarding Rule 0-1(f) of the Agreement. While this Board is in complete accord with those principles articulated by Carrier in its argumentation., the Board does note that the basis for its decision herein is compatible with the casmonly held exceptions which ar and furthermore.4 a careful reading of Rule 0-1(f) in its entirety does not appear to support the extremely limited interpretation which Carrier's argument.4 at first blush,, might suggest.

 FINDINGS: 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 Isbor Act., as approved June 21., 1934.,

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the disdpline was exnessive.


                  A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the opinion,


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD AWMISEHT HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, n.linois,, this 30th day of January 1981.