( Freight Handlers, Rxpsess and Station. FS:ployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

when under date of May 23, 1980 it issued particularly Rae 211,
Motor Truck Operator, Clinton vas dismissed from service account
investigation held may 19, 1980, and
2) Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Mr. Veselko with all rights unimpaired and make him whole for all losses incurred from May 23rd, 1980 until the violation is corrected to include losses incurred in connection with fringe benefits withheld.
OPINION CF BOARD: Claimant vas formerly employed by the Carrier 'as Motor
Truck Operator at Clinton.. Ions. on March 24, 1980, he vas sentenced to 200 days in jail on a morals charge. On May 13, 1980, Carrier notified claimant to report for investigation to be held on May 19, 1980, on the charge:


The investigation vas conducted as scheduled, and on May 23, 1980, claimant vas dismissed from service.

The Organization contends that Rule 21(a) of-the Agreement vas violated. It refers specifically to that portion of Rule 21(a) reading:



The Organization contends that March 24, 1980, vas the fi=st day of the offense for which claimant vas charged; that claimant's supervisor knew of the offense on March 24, and that the Carrier violated the Agreement by waiting until May 19, 19801 or forty-nine days to prefer the charg and fifty-five days for the investigation.


The Board finds no justification for the Organization's contention as to the timeliness of the charge or the investigation. Claimant's absence !roan March 24,, 1980.. to the date of the charge, May 13, 1980, was of a continuing nature. The charge vas Issued during the period of the absence, and the investigation vas timely held after the date of the charge.

Claimant did not appear for the investigation; no request vas made for postponement; nor did a representative appear in his behalf. In the investigation evidence was adduced that claimant did not protect his assignment between March 248, 1980, and limy 13, 1980r nor did he have permission to be absent.

There is no dispute that claimant's failure to protect his assignment was due to being incarcerated. This Board has held in numerous avards that being is jail is not a valid reason for an employe's failure to protect his assignment. We agree with those awards.

There is no proper basis for this Board to interfere with the discipline imposed by the Carrier.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record




That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes 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






                            BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


By
        Rosemarie e Breech - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of May 1983.