PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

On behalf of Signal Maintainer E. C. Stewart, suspended from service for thirty (30) days, due to an investigation held in Tampa, Florida on May 31, 1979, with a request that claimant be compensated for all lost time and all rights and privileges restored while on suspension."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claimant, after hearing, was suspended for thirty days
 because in repairing the damaged signal, he replaced the damaged equipment with the wrong piece of equipment and, in turn, improperly wired the replacement equipment upon installing it.

 The claimant first objects to the manner in which the hearing was held because the signal supervisor acted in the dual capacity of investigating officer and witness at_the hearing. A review of the transcript indicates that the hearing was held in an orderly manner and that it was fair and impartial. It is not unusual for a party to perform a dual role in the process of these hearings, all with the objective of bringing out the facts so that a proper judgment can be made (See Awards 8367 and 20859). This Board will not support this allegation.

 The Claimant also alleges that the Carrier prejudged his guilt. Again, a review of the transcript does not support this allegation and it will be denied.

 Claimant further alleges that the Carrier failed to meet the burden of proof that he had, in fact, improperly wired the device which he had installed in the signal some seventeen months prior to the time that the signal worked improperly. From the record, it appears that the essence of the problem was that when the Claimant found that the signal had been damaged, since he did not have the appropriate replacement part, he used a substitute part which ultimately malfunctioned. The Claimant admitted that he had used the wrong part as a substitute but alleged that he had wired it properly and, therefore, it would not have malfunctioned. The Claimant relies heavily on the fact that so much time elapsed from the time when the device was installed to the time that it malfunctioned which could have afforded the opportunity to those employes who substituted for him when he was away from his assignment to have done some wiring with respect to this signal.

 Claimant particularly objects to certain information not being made available to him by the Carrier during the course of the hearing. Apparently, the Organization used some of this material later but has not been able to provide


any light as to whether any substitute for the Claimant had, in fact, worked on this pole.

 There appears to be sufficient evidence in the record which, if believed, supports the proposition that it was the negligence of the Claimant which caused the malfunction albeit seventeen months after the date of installation. The defense raised by the Claimant, however, seems to be more conjecture than factual. The unierlyiag basis for the dete=inabion of the guilt on the part of the Claimant is that an improper piece of equipment was installed in the signal which was subject to a malfunction which might have served the emergent need of the moment, but should have been replaced as soon as possible which the Claimant did not do or provide for.

 The rules of operation with respect to those functions of the Carrier which involve the safety of personnel using the system as well as the protection of the equipment involved is an extremely important matter and these rules should be followed meticulously. Unless they are, it is a disservice to all the employes of the Carrier including the Claimant.

        For the reasons cited above, the claim will be denied.


        FINDINGS: 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 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 -
 -., -~.
 That the Agreement was not violated. ~·~t
                                                ~;~cEivEo


                        A W A R D :i V

                        r 7 7 r7 ,. n.,

        Claim denied. c


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 ' tional R.silroad Adjustment B d

 BY
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of July 1983.