(American Train Dispatchers Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

(a) The Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as "the carrier") violated the current Agreement (effective July 1, 1976) between the parties, Rule 24 thereof in particular, when the Carrier failed to give Train Dispatcher K. D. Shreffler (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") an investigation within seven calendar days as provided id the Agreement and when the Carrier applied thirty (30) days' suspension, without pay, to the Claimant based upon the investigation held on April 27, 1978. The record, including the transcript, fails to support the discipline assessment made by the Carrier and/or establish guilt on the part of the Claimant. The imposition of the discipline of thirty (30) days' actual suspension was, therefore, arbitrary, capricious, unwarranted and an abuse of managerial discretion.

 (b) The Carrier shall now be required to compensate the Claimant for all losses sustained as a result of this action in accordance with Rule 24(c) and clear the Claimant's personal record of the charges which allegedly provided the basis for said action.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, K. D. Shreffler, was assessed a thirty (30) day
 suspension based upon his duties old on April 27,
 1978. He was charged with failing to
 15, 1978. phper. on April

 Claimant received a notice of investigation dated April 17, 1978 advising of a formal investigation on April 19, 1978. On the same date and contained in the same envelope, Claimant received another notice dated April 17, 1978, advising that the investigation had been postponed and rescheduled for April 27, 1978. The investigation was held on April 27, 1978.

 The Organization contends that the investigation was defective since Carrier did not comply with the seven (7) day time limit in Rule 24 (a) of the Agreement. As to the merits, it contends that Carrier failed to meet its burden of proving that Claimant violated some rule or instruction.


Award Number 23459
 Docket Number TD-2-_330

 Page 2

 The seven day time period commenced on April 15, the date of the alleged offense. The investigation, originally scheduled for April 19, was postponed unilaterally by Carrier until April 27, beyond the seven day limit.

 At the outset of the investigation, the Organization raised its contention that Carrier failed to comply with the time limit in Rule 24 (a). Thus, the Organization's objection was timely.

 This Board has held, in Award Nos. 22258 and 22$98, that the rule in question is to be strictly enforced, and is not a mere guideline. The language of Rule 24(a) is clear, unambiguous and mandatory upon all parties. Investigations must be held within seven calendar days of the alleged offense, unless an extension is mutually agre of the investigation from April 19 to April 24 violated this rule. See also Third Division Award Nos. 17145, 19275, 21996 and 22682.

 In view of this time limit violation, we must sustain the claim as presented without reaching the merits of this case.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 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;

dispute involved herein; and

 That the Agreement was violated.

 Claim sustained.

 Executive Secretary

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST1d3NT BOARD

 By Order of Third Division

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of December 1981.