PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



(1) The suspension of twenty-seven (27) days imposed upon laborer John Mazur was without just affil sufficient cauan and on the basis of unproven and disproves charges (Carrier's File P/R J. Mazur).

 (2) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed to timely refer decision following the investigation held on July 2, 1979.

 (3) As a consequence of either or both (1) and/or (2) above, the claimant's record shall be cleared of the charge leveled against him and he shall be reimbursed far all wage lose suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, I. Mazur., a laborer in Carrier's Bridge and
 Building Department, was suspended from service for
 '7 days for alleged insubordination. The suspension was effective from
 ,rune 26, 1979 to July 23, 1979. The organization requested a hearing in the
 iaatter. The hearing wen held on July 2, 1979. Carrier., hovever, did not
 render a decision within the seven-days required by Rule 43 of the Schedule
 Agreement.

 The Organization argues that this failure of Carrier's herring officer to render a decision in a timely manner requires that the claim be sustained as presented. Carrier argues that its failure to render a 3ecision within the seven days required by Rule 43 occurred during an intermediate step in the grievance proceedings where time limits are rarely follo fns the hearing officer at the conclusion of the hearing to inform the representative orally it ther
This Board has carefully reviewed the record of this case and hen concluded that the hearing officer days required by Rule 43 is a major contract violation that does have a negative impact on Claimant's due process and contract rights. The Hoard is net impressed with Carrier's argument that because this violation took place in the early steps of the grievance procedure, it was unimportant and should be ignored.


Carrier points out that Rule 43 is unique in that an employs can be suspended without a hearing. This Hoard is mindful of that fact and, consequently, thinks that adherence to time limit requirements is especially important in such a situation. Every Division of this Hoard hen attempted, through its decisions, to be meticulously accurate and consistent in applying time Limits an written in the Schedule Agreement. The parties is this industry are fully aware of the Board's position an adherence to time limits and the majority of claims have no time limit problems. We see no reason to deviate from a policy of strict adherence to time limits here. This case will be sustained on the time li
          FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon, the whole record and all the evidence, finds std holds:


          That the parties waived oral hemring;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier sad Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 19341

 That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdlction aver the dispute involved herein; and

          That the Agreement was violated.


                        A W A R D


          Claim sustained as presented.


                                YATIOftAT. RAILROAD AIUM24ENT HOARD

                                By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary ~ C E I 1~
 National Railroad Adjustment. Board / \'
 ' ,r~'·~ 7 V ~" :i

                                            0

                                            I C,

                                              _~ 7 L~Ooif

By offl~!~'
      o emarie Breach - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 10th day of March 1982.