NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 23491
 Docket Number MS-23498

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 THIRD DIVISION

 A. Robert Lawry., Referee

 (James C. Chyo

 (Soo Line Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of James C. Cayo that:

 (1) Carrier violated the rules of the S00-BRAC Clerks' Agreement by wrongfully discharging the Claimant on August 2, 1978.

 (2) Carrier shall now be required to exonerate Claimant and clear his record of the charges.

 (3) Carrier shall be required further: (a) to reinstate Claimant in its service with seniority, and all other rights, unimpaired; (b) to compensate Claimant for all and all monetary loss incurred resulting from the cancellation of his coverage under Group Policy GA-23000."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Mr. James C. Cayo, the Claimant, was employed as an Engine
 men Crew Caller by the Carrier with about 2 years service
 in this capacity. He was previously employed by the Carrier as Switchman but
 as a result of an injury he became disqualified for such service and subsequently
 received a financial settlement, which has nothing to do with this case, but is
 noted for the record. On July 24, 1978, Carrier addressed the following letter
 to Claimant:

 "Arrange to appear in the Terminal Superintendent's office, Soo Line Railroad, 28th and Central Avenue NE at 2:30 p.m. Friday, July 28, 1978, for formal investigation to determine facts and place your responsibility, if any, in connection with your unauthorized use of credit cards issued to the Soo Line Railroad Co. by Amoco Oil Co* for the purchase of petroleum products on original Invoices 526898, Saturday, march il, 1978, 962326, Saturday. April 29, 1978, and 136599, not datedp and executing those documents with a buyer's signature for which you had no authorization."

 "Bring representative and witnesses if desired. Acknowledge receipt. H-24."

 After one postponement requested by Claimant's Local Chairman, the investigation was held on August 4, 1978.


A careful exkunination of the transcript of the investigation, which was made a part of the record, and the entire record reveals that Claimant requested Carrier to produce 15 witnesses in his behalf but Carrier declined on the basis that they, the 15 witnesses, would be unable to develop pertinent fact relating to the charges, however, Carrier specifically advised Claimant's representative that he had the right to call his witnesses if he desired. (If Carrier had called the witnesses it would have been liable for expenses incurred and time lost by such witnesses.) Claimant, as a result, chose not to call any witnesses. Claimant was represented at the investigation by his Local Chairman and they were given every opportunity to cross examine Carrier's witnesses extensively. The record further reveals that when Claimant's representative requ copies of all the documents Carrier contemplated using in the hearing. Based on this examination of the record the Board concludes Claimant was given a fair and impartial hearing.

 The Carrier's principle witness in the investigation, a professional "Lxsminer of Questioned Documents", a hand writing expert; fully qualified in this field, testified; "The same hand that authored the comparison apeciman submitted to me bearing the signature of James Charles Cayo and/or James C. Cayo authored the signatures appearing on Exhibit #25, Exhibit #26 and Kxhibit #27." These exhibits were the three invoices in question. Claimant testified that the signatures used as comparison specimans were his signature.

 It should be noted that the invoices did not show, as is normal, the lio·nse number of the automobile involved.

 The Carrier also contended that the amount of gasoline purchased covered by invoice 136599 in the amount of $24.80 at .569¢ per gallon represented a volume larger than the capacity of any vehicle used by the terri Invoice 526898 in the amount of $29.50 does not indicate what was purchased. Claimant owned a pick-up truck having a regular gas tank of 26 gallons and an auxiliary tank of 17 gallons, a total of 43 gallons, which was the amount of gasoline purchased on invoice 136599· Claimant contended the auxiliary tank was rusted out and not serviceable. There was no testimony substantiating his contention.

 On August 12, 1978, Carrier addressed a letter to Claimant dismissing him from service.

 The Organization argued from the outset as did the Claimant in his brief to this Board that the Carrier'a charges of July 24j 1978, were an indictment prejudging Claimant's innocence by using the phrase "your unauthori dispute between Claimant and the Organization over the contents of the submission to this Board, the the request of Claimant.)
                      Award Number 23491 Page 3

                      Docket Number M3-23498


        Rule 2<) of the: aeement reads as follows,:


        "An employee, charged with an offense, chall be furnished with a letter stating the precise charge at the time the charge is made."


Referee Paul C. Dugan in Third Division Award 17066 cited the reasons why,
 specificity is required in a formal investigation notice, when he wrote:

        "The purpose of completely informing a person of a charge or charges being assessed against him is to prevent surprise and to permit the accused to properly prepare his defense to the offense or offenses as charged. An accused thus is entitled to rely on the written charges made against him."


'There can be no question that Carrier's Letter of July 24, 1978, set forth the "precise charge", in fact, the only criticism would be that it was "too precise" in the use of the word "your" in the phrase "your unauthorized use of credit cards". It certainly was in conformity with the specificity theory of Referee Dugan. The phrase "to determine facts and place your responsibility, if any, ***" "your" in the charges. To further substantiate the Board's findings of a "fair and impartial hearing" and to further substantiate Carrier's conformity with Referee Dugan's t the investigation including the statement from the professional Examiner of Questioned Docents, thus eliminating any possibility of surprises and giving Claimant and his representative every opportunity to prepare a defense. However, the outcome of this dispute does not rise or fall on what may or may not be termed as inappropriate use of the single word your .

        After the hearing/investigation the organization retained a hand

writing expert and attempted. to place his report Into the record for consid
 eration. The Carrier rejected the evidence as will this Board. LIt has been
 the custom ands ctice in this industry and upheld by this Board for many
 years VA-6.iftethe hearing/investigation is closed no further evidence
 will be consideTediby either party a The Organization and Claimant had in
 their pos¢ogi.on tse report of Carrier's hand writing witness and if it -
 nBed:Cdfidd~t OD~i. 1 to retain such a witness for an independent report
 it, the Organ$lition or Claimant, should have requested further postpone
 oft e:inmastigation. Nor will this Board consider or accept as rele
 want tfe~conduct of Claimant after the investigation. The only matter before
 this Boexd is that contained in the Charges which were the subject of the
 investigation held on August 4, 1978.
                      Award Number 23491 Page 4

                      Docket Number MS-23493


The board finds after careful study of the entire record that the testimony of the expert hand writing witness, Hooteno sustains the charges of the Carrier. The Claim must be denied.

        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 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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this ith day of January 19F,2.
                                            RECEIVFp "',~, c JAN 2 5 ~c 4 ~c


                                          ~o9o Office -

                                                    g!1`J