Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 ( (Pacific Lines)

 STATUMT OF CLAM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail-
              road Signalmea on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company:


(s) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) has violated the agreement, effective October 1, 1973r between the Company and the employee of the Signal Department represented by the motherhood of Railroad Signalmen and particularly that part of Rule 59(e) stating 'an employee* o9abeal not be disciplined or dismissed without a fair and impartial hearing.'

 (b) Mr. R. C. Gollen be reinstated to his position of General CTC Maintenance Technician with all rights restored and be allowed payment for all time, including overtime, lost since his dismissal." (Carrier file: 011-181(G))

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant entered Carriers service as a Signalmen in 1967.
 He was on military live from 1968 until 1972, remaining is service with Carrier thereafter until his dismissal. On June 9, 1978, CLsim- eat was working as a flagman at a grade crossing in order to protect a maintsnsace of way crew a that the Claimant operate such system manually (by a "Knife Switch") as need to control motor vehicle traffic is conjunction with train movement. The Claimant is charged with fa of a train with a vehicle passing over the crossing, The Claimant was charged with violations of Rules 801 sad 802 reading, in pertinent parts respectively:

        "Employee will not be retained in the service who are careless of the safety of themselves or others, ..... or conduct themselves in a manner which would subject the railroad to criticism ...."


        And


        "Indifference to duty, or to the performance of duty, will not be condoned."

                    Award Number 23380 Page 2

                    Docket Number SG-22990


As a result of such hearings he was dismissed from service on June 23.- 19'(8. The Claimant was subsequently reinstated on August 16, 1978; the Claim herein is thus limited to whatever wages sad rights may have been lost during the period of time he was out of service.

 The organization's defenses are technical air procedural is nature and do not challenge the fart-situation in any effective meaner. We are led to the conclusion that the CLaimnat bore responsibility fair the accident sad that the (terrier was within its rights to effect discipline. We find no basis to affirm any procedural claims that would disturb the Carrier's actions in this case.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board,, upon the whole record and all the evidences finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral heating;


That the Carrier sad the Employee involved is this dispute ace respectively c7arrier and Employee within the manning of the Rsllwny labor Acts as approved June 21$ 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; sad

        gat the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Cliicagoj, Illinois this 15th day of September 1981.