Joseph A. Sickles, Referee


(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
                (Western Pacific Railroad Company


STAM, MT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

 (a) The Western Pacific Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the current Agreement (effective November 1, 1952 between the parties, including Rule 20(f) thereof, when the Carrier refused and continues to refuse to furnish train dispatcher J. C. McCall (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") a copy of the stenographic record (transcript) taken of the investigation held on October 22, 1974.

 (b) The Carrier shall now be required to furnish the Claimant a copy of the stenographic record (transcript) of this investigation which was called (scheduled) by the Carrier.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Rule 20 of the agreement between the parties is concerned
 with discipline, investigations and appeals, and that rule provides that an employs will not be demoted, disciplined or discharged without a proper investigation; sad it establishes the procedural steps to be followed in a disciplinary matter.

        Rule 20(f) states:


        "If s stenographic record of an investigation is taken, the train dispatcher involved or his representative shall, upon request, be furnished a copy."


On September 26, 1974, the Claimant received a notice instructing him to attend an investigation. The investigation was postponed until October 21, 1974.

 The Employes cite prior Awards which have enforced similar agreement provisions, and here the Claimant requests that this Board rule that the Employer is obligated to furnish a copy of the stenographic record to the Claimant, because an investigation was taken and a request for a copy has been made.

 The Carrier notes that the investigation was started, but was then recessed prior to its completion, and was never reconvened. Subsequently, it was cancelled and a transcript was never prepared. Further, the Carrier suggests that the intent of the cited rule is to assist a "disciplined employs in the progression of as appea when no disciplinary action was taken, the reason for furnishing a transcript disappears. The Organi upon what it contends to be the clear wording of the rule.
                Award Number 233 Page 2

                _ Docket Number TD-24031


Obviously, a determination in this, or a related, case must depend upon the particular facts of record. Unquestionably, under this record, a request for a copy was made. We must then determine if a stenographic record of an investigation was taken. In that regard, the record seems to clearly establish that the Carrier did schedule an investigation to determine facts and place possible responsibility for a collision between a train and e car. As we understand the record., the investigation was started, but was then postponed and subsequently cancelled without ever having been completed. Accordingly, the Carrier did not order a copy of the transcript from the Certified Shorthand Reporter who was engaged to prepare the transcript.

 The Hoard tends to agree with the Employes that the Company's stated reason for the inclusion of Rule 20(f) in the agreement does not control the outcome of this case. We do not concur that the record establishes that Rule 20(P) exists solely to insure a procedural remedy is the event the employs feels aggrieved by d Rule 20. Stated differently., if, in fact, there was as investigation completed and the appropriate Ggrrier personnel determined that the employs was not guilty, then the obligation under Rule 20(f) would still exist, even though there exists no need for an appeal.

        While we conclude that the (terrier reads the rule too narrowly, we;

also conclude that the Employes read the rule too broadly. We must bear in
 mind that investigations are fashioned after "trials" as a means of ascertain
 ing facts so that appropriate determinations can be made. The fact that an
 investigation may be started does not constitute the limited proceedings taken
 thereunder as an "investigation", as such, any more than one would consider
 that there has been a "trial", as such, if such a judicial proceeding started
 but was postponed and cancelled prior to its completion.

 Obviously, as indicated above, our determination is limited solely to this particular case. Under this record, we question that there was an "investigation",~as such; and thus, the Certified Reporter merely took notes of a proceeding which fell short of being a full investigation. Consequently, there is no enforceable obligation against the Carrier under Rule 20(f).

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 (terrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
                        Award Number 23843 Page 3

                        Docket Number TD-24031


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 AWUS24ENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 BY
      emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 26th day of March 1982.
    j-


/;
        ~<,

'·'% ~ C.' <'

 i

 m
 v_~ o
 IU O

 1\ V~ _~ O

 \G.~J .L

        c,~/;