(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATaM'IR OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Sectionman R. L. McDermott for alleged violation of 'General Notioe, Rule "B" and Rule 700' was without just and sufficient cause (System File 5-18-11-14-55/013-210-Mc).

 (2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss snftered."

 OPINION CP BOARD: Claimant was employed by the Carrier as sectiomman at
 North Platte, Nebraska, and had been in service as a sectionmnn frost July 5s 19Th.

 The record shoos that on August 26, 1980, claimant, while on duty as sectionman, wgs apprehended by civil authorities, taken into custody, charged with forgery, second degree, a close 3 felony, and incarcerated with bond set for #1.0..000.00. On August 27, 1980.. claimant was notified by Roadmsster P. A. ValeeCO:

Rule 48(L) of the Agreement, referred to in the letter of August 27s , 1980, is part of the Discipline Rule of the Agreement, and reeds:



    On August 29p 1980.. claimant's representative requested a formal hearing In his behalf, which was scheduled for September 26s 1980. On September 23s 1980.. claimant was notified by the Roadmster:


          "Referring to my letters dated August 27s 1980 concerning your dismissal iron service per Rule 48(L) of the Agreement between the Union Pacific Railroad and t September 19s 1980.. advising that investigation has been scheduled for Fridays September 26s 1980.. at 10:00 a.m. at the Poedmnster's office in North Platte, Nebraska yon have been charged with violation of the following rules in connection with your dismissal: General Notices Rule 'B' and Rule 700 as contained in Form 7908.. 'Ruies Governing Duties and Dsportmeat of ad ployess Safety Instructions and Use of Badio.' "


    The rules referred to in the Foadmaster's letter of September 23s 1980., were read into the investigation and are quoted is the carrier's submission. We see no necess


    After being postpomeds the hearing or investigation was held on October 23, 1980. Claimant was present at the hearing and was represented. A copy of the transcript of the hearing has been made a part of the records as has the correspondence covering the appeal of the claim on the property.. following notice to the claimant on November 5, 1980.. that his dismissal from the service was upheld.


    The Carrier questions time timeliness of the filing of Organization's notice to file an ex carte submission. The record shows the notice vas. stamped as received by the Third Division on February 12, 1982. The notice was timely filed.


. 9:e Carrier also contends that the claim before the Board varies

    from the claim pursued on the property. While flee wording of the claim before

    the Board may vary slightly frog the claim filed and appealed on the propcrtys

    the substance of the chit is the same. The claim lam not been enlarged

    upon and the Carrier has not been misled.


    The Carrier contends further that the claim is procedurally defective because the Organisation did not specifically notify the Division Sneer of the rejection of his decisions but simply furnished the Division Engineer with a copy of its appeal latter to the Chief Engineer. The Board hue held that the fishing of a copy of the letter of appeal to the officer whose decision is being appealed constitutes compliance with the rule. See Award No. 14624 and Award 14021 cited therein. See also Decision No. 14 of the National Disputes Committees dated th 17s 1965.


    In the handling of the dispute on the paxeperEy the Organisation's contentions were that carrier abused the intent of Rats 48(L)s and violated Rule 48(a) of the Agreement when it disciplined claimant prior to a formal hearing. The Board snot agree with such contentions. Rule 48(L)s a part of the discipline rules is specific in providing that "Employes need not be granted a hearing prior to dismissal in instances whom ...they voluntarily

                  Avard Xmber 243 8 Page 3

                  Docket finber 1st-2539


leave the work site without proper authority or involuntarily leave their job as a result of apprehension by civil authorities..." This portion of the rule fits the present case. Upon a request for a hearing, such hearing was held as provided for in the last sentence of Rule 48(L). We find, therefore.. that no violation of Rule 48(L) or Rule 48(a) occurred, as contended by the Organization
In the handling of the dispute on the property, it developed that at a trial held on September 26, 1980, in Hooker county Court at Mullen.. Nebraska, the charge against claimant was reduced to forgery, second degree misdemeanor to which claimant pled guilty, was fined $250.00, placed on probation for one year, and *850.00.

 In its submission to the Board the Organization makes contentions that were not made on the property. It contends that the Carrier failed to make any specific reference to the provisions of the rules on which it based its dkarges against claimnat, and that no evidence was presented at the hearing to prove violation of Carrier's General. Notice, General Rule "B" and General Regulation 700. The Organization also contends before the Board that claimant was denied a pamper appeal as the
 hearing officer was also the initial officer of appeal. Acme of these contentions was raised in the on-property handling, and may'not be raised far the first time before the Board. ft is well s made on the property and specifics provided when the cum is before the Board.

 We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the bearing and find substantial evidence to support the Carrier's decision of claimant's guilt, andL, considering clais.nt's prier record, which was far from satisfactory, Carrier's aatim in dismissing cssimnnt free service was not arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith. The claim will be denied.

        Pnm11iG8: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral. firing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Maployes within the mesning 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

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                  Award Number 24358 page 4

                  Docket Humber M1-24539

                  A W A R D


        Clais< denied.


                              NATIONAL RAnMAD ADJWMWT HOARD


                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive SecretuT
 Rational Railroad Adjastveat Hood

        Rosamarie Hrasch - Administrative Assistant


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

    %'- :~V D


J

~~ C.hico 9 p 0

        IE~ '~