(American Train Dispatchers Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUT;: ( _

STATT CF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

 (a) The Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the current Agreement (effective July 1, 1976) between the parties,, Rule 24 thereof in particulars when the Carrier failed to hold as investigation on Train Dispatcher R. R. Koppelman within seven calendar days as provided in the Agreements when the Carrier failed to give the Claimant's representative a copy of the decision in writing within seven calendar days after completion of the iavestigatio;i and when the Carrier applied thirty (30) days' deferred suspension (which was later changed to actual suspension and served by the Claims_t) based on the investigation held on August 30/October 2, 1979. The records including the investigation transcripts., shows that the Carrier did violate the time limits mined in the Agreement and fails to support the discipline assessment made by the Carrier ands therefore., the imposition of the discipline of thirty (30) days' deferred suspension was arbitrary capricious., uaWarranted and an abuse of managerial discretion.

 (b) The Carrier shall now be required to compensate the Claimant for all losses sustained as a result of this action in accordance with Rule 24(c) and clear the Claimant's personal record of the charges which allegedly provided the basi
fN'INION OF BOARD: Claimant herein and. an Operator were chsged with issuing
 conflicting Train Orders an August 23s. 1979 in violation of
 the special instructions issued by the Chief Train Dispatcher. The investigation
 of the charges commenced at 5:Orf P.M. on August 30s 1979. At 8:22 P.M. on
 August 30th the investigation was postponed b the Hearing Officer (over the
 objections of Claimant and his representative in view of the then discovered
 fact that the operator was in violation of the Hours of Service Law. By notice
 dated September 21s 1979 the hearing wan scheduled to reconvene at 10:00 A.M.
 on October 2s 1979. Claimant was disciplined by a Notice dated October 8.. 1979.

 As a threshold issues Petitioner contends that carrier violated the Agreements Rule 24,v in particulars by the unilateral postponement of the Investigation on August 30 record indicates that the operator's representative was willing to proceed even without the presence of his principal, due to the hours of.service problem.


        Rule 24 provides that:


        "The investigation shall be held within seven calendar days of the alleged offense or within seven calendar days of the date information concerning the alleged offense has reached his supervising officer."


Carrier mainte.ins that there is no prohibition in the rules against postponing an investigstionj, nor is any time limit imposed. The time limits in the rule apply only to the initial convening of the hearing and were complied with according to the Carrier. Furthermore.. (terrier argues that the necessity to comply with federal law superseded the application of any schedule rule.

        There have been a series of prior disputes between these same

parties over the question of the postponement of investigations in violation
 of Rule 24(a).. among them Awards 22258.. 23459 and 23496. In those disputes
 this Board has held consistently that " .... the time limits set forth in
 Rule 24(a) must be strictly enforced. They are not mere guidelines. They
 are procedural prerequisites to the imposition of discipline (Award 23496)."
 In this dispute the only differing circumstances was the hours of service
 law problem with one of the two principals. The Board must observes however,
 that there was no requirement that the two men should have been investigated
 jointly. Further the postponement for a period of some five weeks seems
 wholly unjustified. It is this Board's continued view that under Rule 24(a)
 investigations must be held within seven calendar days of the alleged offense
 in the absence of a mutually agreed upon extension. In this dispute the
 peculiar circumstances even if they had constituted an understandable miti
 gating circumstances,, did not ;-Justify the lengthy delay. We cannot reach the
 merits of this matter in view of the procedural flaw; the Claim mast be
 sustained.

        FINDIMS: 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 Employee within the meaning of the Hallway 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 violated.

                    Award Number 24247 Page 3

                    Docket Number TD-23967

                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS24MT BOARD By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 Rosemarie Breach - Adminis ative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of March 1983.