(Brotherhood of Railways Airline and Steamship Clerks Freight Handlers, Express and Station Huployes PARTIES TO DI~TfE:



(a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement at Barstow, California, on or about July 21, 1978, when it wrongfnUy assessed the personal record of Ms. R. S. Montoya with twenty demerits, and

 (b) Carrier shall nor remove the twenty demerits and any reference to the formal investigation held on July 10, 1978, from the personal record of Ms. R. S. Montoya.

 OP33ION CF BOARD: Claimant was assessed twenty demerits for failure to
 report to work and failure to secure permission not to
 report to work. 'fhe hearing, which was the basis for the assessment, was
 held while the claimant was away tram the community on vacation and the
 claimant did not appear at the hearing.

 The Carrier relies upon ale 24 which requires that the investigation be held not later than twen knowledge of the occurrence. It attempted to sake service at the claimant's home while she was on vacation, but the Carrier's representative was notified that the claimant was out of town is San Francisco. The Carrier further provided notice by certified to have been in San Francisco. The Carrier points out that neither the claimant nor the Organization requested a delay of the hearing.

 We find no evidence that the claimant intentionally avoided the service. We do note, however, that the Carrier knew that the claimant was on vacation on the day of the hearing, away from the community where the hearing was to be held, that service would be difficult under those circumstances, and that attendin those circumstances.
                      Docket Number CL.-23349


A procedural issue is raised here. Rule 24-B requires that the employe be apprised in writing of the precise nature of the charges to be investigated. Although the Carrier made *very effort to satisfy this condition, there is no evidence in the record that this was accomplished. -It does not appear that the claimant was avoiding the service. She was simply out of town on vacation which the Carrier's records would show.

 Under the circumstances, we find that the Carrier satisfied the procedural requirements of the Agreement, when it made every effort to comply within the time limit of Rule 24-B.

 We do find, however, that there is a duty beyond the specific procedural requirements, in order to have a fair and complete hearing, to make every effort to notify the employe of the charges and afford the employe an opportunity to be present at the investigation.

        Under the circumstances, the conducting of the investigation

when the employe was out of town without at least some effort to secure agreement to a delay from the Organization, had denied the employe a fair and complete hearing.

 We limit this decision to the facts in this case and do not intend to establish a precedent with respect to essential witnesses at a hearing or investigation.

        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 Bmployes within the meaning of the Railway.lebor~7 ; .
 Act, as approved June 21, 1934; / <<

        That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdictioh

over the dispute involved herein; and. ':'; C.,I
 r
 That the Agreement was violated.
 A W A R D

 Claim sustained. ,
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 ATTEST: i ' By Order of Third Division

        Executive Secretary


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