Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATWEPT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

On behalf of Signalmen P. William a0 M. R0.inop M. Scholl and F. Harones who were suspended thirty days for allegedly violating Rule G on July 27.. 1379." (on-ri.er file; System Docket NH-3$ Northeastern Region, New Haven Division)

 OPINION OF BOARD: Clsimsates Signalman P. Williesss Me Fainos Me Scholl
 and F. Harare, were taken out of service on July 27, 1979, for alleged Rule G violations when they were seen by s (terrier official drinking in a bar short 31# 1979, Claimants were ratified by letter fiat they should attend a hearing in the matter on August 7, 1979. The hearing wan held as scheduled. Clnimats were found guilty and eubsequeat7,y were assessed a 30-day suspension, including actual time off* The Organization filed a grievance in the matter, alleging a procedural violation of Rule 58P untimely holding of the investigations and maintaining that Claimants had booked off and were mat subject to duty while is the bar, drinking. The claim was denied by Carrier and advanced to this Hoard for resolution.

 (terrier argues that Claimants were subject to duty while drinking. Their reporting point was Devon Connecticut. They ware on duty until they clocked out at this point. They are transported from the reporting site to the nark site affil returned in Carrier vehicles. This means they ere subject to duty while is a company vehicle.

 Carrier also argues that it did hold the herring in accordance with Rule 58. Rule 58 gives Carrier the authority to suspend in proper cases and then hold a timely hearing. It suspended Claimants on July 27., charged them by letter on July 31, and held a hearing as August 7.

 The Organization argues that Claimants had reported off at noon. The Foreman gave them permission to book off* He told then that he would drive them back to Devon after he ate his lunch. Claimants were not on duty or subject to duty; they were Organization also argues that Claimants were taken oat of service on July 27 and that a hearing was held on August 7. That is eleven days after charges were levied. This is a violation and the claim should be allayed se submitted.
 Award Number 23567
 Docket Number SG-23844

 Page 2

 Thin Board has carefully reviewed the record of this case and moat conclude that Carrier is not in violation of the agreement and that Claimants were properly suspended and a timely hearing was held. This Board is also of the opinion that Claimants were under the control of Carrier during the time that they were drinking since they would not be officially off the clock until they returned to the headquarters point at Dewns Connecticut and then booked off.

 The Board has looked to a number of its previous awards for guidance on dust when Carrier has responsibility and subsequent liability for its employee. It subscribes to from a work site to a headquarters site, they are under the control of Carrier. (See Awards 20693 and 21705 Lieberman) Claimants in this situation were clearly planning to ride to the headquarters in Devoas Connecticut in the company vehicle. They should net have been drinking until they were out from under company control and the company no longer had any responsibility for then.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier ancl Employes within the messing of the Railway Labor Acts as approved June 21p 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction aver the dispute involved herein; and

 That the Agreement was not violated.

 A W A R D
Chsia denied.

 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary



NATtOlUL RAILROAD ADJ(18'dMNT HOARD
 By Order of Thud Division

 Ctl V- y

 ~ 1_ v y,,:.~

 Dated at Chicago Illinois, this 10th day of March 1982· ~~ no C" ice -

'~r