(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES IN DISPUTE:
 (Southern Railway Company

On behalf of B. M. Harris, who was dismissed from his Signal Maintainer position at St. George. S. C., for restoration to service with seniority rights unimpaired, pay for all time lost between November 13 and 28, 19T90 and pay for all time lost frca December 20, 19'l9, until reinstated, account Carrier's decision to dismiss him was harsh and excessive end because the agreement was violated particularly Rule 23."

 (General Chairman file: SR-152. Carrier file: SG-426)

 OPINION OF BOARD: On October 15, 1979 the Claimant, B. M. Harris, was assigned
 by bulletin to the traveling signal maintainer position at
 St. George, South Carolina. On October 29, 1979 he reported to his new head
 quarters point under the supervision of Mr. H. V. Duncan., G&S Supervisor.

 At about 4.:55 AM on November 13, 1979 the Claimant was involved in a single vehicle accident. At 6:10 AM Claimant Harris called Supervisor Duncan informing him that he had been involved is an automobile accident while driving the Company truck between Clinton and Columbia, South Carolina.

 On the same date. November 13, 1979, Claimant was notified that he was relieved from service of the Company pending as investigation in connection with the charges of: (1) failure to comply with instructions from his Supervisor and General Supervisor prohibiting the use of any company vehicle for personal transportation, and (2) violation of Rule #6, Company vehicles will be used only for business of the railway. Subsequent to the investigation held on December 20, 1979, Claimant Harris was notified by letter dated January k, 1980 that he was dismissed from all service, effective November 13, 1979· The claim was handled in the usual and prescribed manner on the property and, failing resolution, is before the Board.

 The Carrier maintains that the testimony of various witnesses, in addition to the Claimant's own admission of guilt, renders the matter of guilt to be indisputable.

 Supervisor Duncan testified that the Claimant was instructed by three different supervisors that be -was., (1) not to use the Company truck for personal use and (2) he was to park the Company truck at the depot rhea he got off duty. Supervisor Duncan's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Supervisor Davis.,

                        Award Number 23996 Page 2

                      Docket Number SG-239


The Carrier further asserts that in Claimant's testimony, he admitted guilt. Claimant Harris testified as follows:

    "Q: When you took the company truck up on Monday, the 12th, and started back with it on Tuesday the 13th, you had not obtained permission from any supervisor to use this truck?


        A: No sir, I had not.


    Q: Do you have any statement to make for the record as to why you used the company vehicle after receiving these instructions?


        A: Yes, I do.


    I was given the impression that I could get my transportation sad I knew that I went against tha was doing, I drove the truck - not home - but somewhere in the designated area and then got picked up. Like I said, I understood the instructions they gave to me, and told me not to get the truck, and I didn't expect an accident would happen, so I accept all the responsibility."


The Carrier further maintains that it did not violate Rule 23 when the Claimant was released from his duties prior to the investigation. Rule 23 states in part.. "After charge or charges am made and pending investigation sad decision, employee may be relieved from service, to protect life or property..." The (terrier contends that Cl truck and greatly endangered his own safety, demonstrated that the Claimant had a total disregard for the authority of his supervisors and Company policy.

 The Carrier contends that dismissal was warranted, especially given the fact that the Claimant had been previously disciplined, is July 1979s for making unauthorized motel charges against the Company.

 The Organization maintains that the furrier violated Rule 23 when it dismissed Claimant without an investigation. The Organization contends that the Carrier offered no proof that if Claimant had worked until the investigation that he would endanger life or property.

 Even if there had been no violation of Rule 23, the Organization maintains that the dismissal wa There is no evidence to indicate that the Company ever made known to Claimant the consequences if he did use a company truck for personal reasons.

 Upon careful consideration of the record, the Board concludes that the Claimant was given a fair and impartial hearing. The Board further concludes that there is substantial evidence on the record to support the charges. The record indicates Claimant di of Rule #6. In these circumstances the Board denies the claim.
                        Award Number 23996 Page 3

                        Docket Ntmber SG-23968


FMa1GS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and
 upon the whole record end all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier sad Blqployes 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

              YI


          That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


          Claim denied.


                            RATIONAL RAa..ROAD ADJtFMMIT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By X~emarie Breach - Administrative Assistant

 Dated a' t Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of September 1982.