(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE=
 (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM, "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company:

 Claim on behalf of D. R. Critten, Signal Maintainer, suspended from service for ten (10) days and assessed fifteen (15) days deferred suspension, due to an investigation held in Denison, Texas on June 2, 1978, with a request that claimant be paid for the ten (10) days he was suspended and his record cleared."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, David Ross Critten, had a seniority date of
 September 5, 1972 and was employed as a Signal Maintainer when the instant dispute arose. His responsibilities included the inspection and maintenance of shunt wires.

 On May 24, 1978, Claimant was contacted by a Federal Railroad Administration Inspector and taken the shunt wires were missing. Two days later the Carrier's Engineer-Communications and Signals notified Claimant to be present at an investigation to develop facts and determine responsibility for an alleged violation of the following rules:







                        Docket Number SG-22870 Page 2


The investigation was conducted on June 2, 1978 and the Claimant was subsequently notified that he was being assessed ten (10) work days actual suspension and fifteen (15) days deferred suspension for negligence and indifference to duty. The Or 1978, which alleged that Claimant did not receive a fair investigation and that the Carrier failed to carry its burden of proving a violation of Rules D and H.

 The thrust of the Organization's argument that Claimant was denied a fair hearing was that the Carrier refused him the opportunity to cross-examine certain witnesses, particularly the Carrier officer who authored the notice of investigation. This Board finds that the Claimant was not denied due process by the refusal of the Hearing Officer to call certain witnesses. The Hearing Officer refused to call these witnesses because they had no knowledge of the incident under investigation. The General Chairman stated he wanted the men present "to explain the exact interpretation of the rules Mr. Critten (had been) charged with." However, an investigation is not a rules class and the charges were specific and unambiguous giving the Claimant precise notice regarding the alleged violations.

 Regarding Claimant's alleged negligence and indifference to duty, the record discloses the following: (1) Claimant had a large territory to maintain; (2) Claimant had been occasionally assigned work out of his territory; (3) Claimant did not make inspections as frequently as he had been directed to; and (4) the shunt wires were missing from a switch at Itasca, M. P. 801, which was part of Claimant's territory.

 she Carrier has failed, however, to demonstrate that the Claimant was culpable in the matter_1of the missing shunt wires. There was no indication of how long the wires hacl-been missing or how they came to be missing. :_rt was certainly possible that causes other than the Claimant's alleged negligence were responsible for the missing shunt wires.

 Thus, this Board is left with the question of an appropriate remedy. Although the facts disclosed in the record do not excuse the Claimant's failure to make thorough periodic inspections, he is not to be held at fault for the more serious offense of the missing shunt wires. This Board, therefore, removes the ten (10) days actual suspension and allows the fifteen (15) days deferred suspension to stand. The C benefits lost as a result of the ten (10) days suspension.

        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;

                        Award Number 23173

                        Docket Number SG-22870 Page 3


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

        Thst the discipline was excessive.


                        A W A R D


(1) The ten (10) days actual suspension shall be removed and the Claimant made whole for any lost earnings and agreement benefits resulting therefrom.

        (2) The fifteen (15) days deferred suspension shall stand.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: I
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of rbbrusry 1981.