(American Train Dispatchers Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Burlington Northern Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CIAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

 (a) Burlington Northern Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the Agreement between the parties, Article 24 thereof in particular, when it assessed five (5) days' suspension as discipline to train dispatcher D. L. Hedrick in connection with formal investigation held at Alliance, Nebraska, on January 31, 1980. The record is clear that the Claimant committed no rules violations and that he was not guilty of the charge. The Carrier has refused and continues to refuse to reimburse the Claimant for time lost and to clear his record of the charge which is an arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable abuse of managerial discretion.

 (b) Because of such violation the Carrier shall be required to reimburse the Claimant for all time lost and clear the Claimant's record of all reference to the matter here involved.

 OPINION OF.BOARD: Claimant is charged with the improper completion of a train
 order and was disciplined for violation of Rule 208 which,
 in essence, provides that "when a train order has been transmitted, operators
 must, unless otherwise directed, repeat it at once in the succession in which the
 several offices have been addressed. Each operator receiving the order must
 observe whether the others repeat correctly. When an order has been repeated
 correctly, the response 'complete' and the time, will be given by the train
 dispatcher".

 The events are not disputed. On January 23, 1980, Claimant, working at Alliance, Nebraska, issued Train Order No. 326 to the Operators at Northport and Alliance for the purpose of setting up a train meet between Train Extra 5381 East and Extra 7830 West.at Angora. In the repetition of this order by the operators to Claimant, both operators transposed the number of Extra 5381 to Extra 5831. Claimant failed to detect the error and "completed" the order. When the trains arrived in Angora, the error was discovered and a new accurate order was issued by radio. Claimant conceded that the order was incorrectly repeated and that he "completed" an erroneous order. Carrier disciplined Claimant by a five-day suspension from service and the entry of censure on his personal record.

 The Organization raises two objections, the first addressed to procedure and the second to disparate discipline.

 The Organization contends that Claimant was denied a proper investigation when the conducting of


his own behalf but limited that right to his representative. At the investigation, Claimant was represented by J. W. Hollis, Office Chairman, PTDA, who participated fully in the proceeding. The transcript of the investigation shows the presence of 14 other persons including members of the train crew, all of whom participated in the proceedings through their own Employe representatives. When such a large number of litigants and litigators are assembled at a hearing, orderly procedure indicates that the examination and cross-examination of witnesses be conducted by representatives rather than by the parties themselves. Presumably the representatives have the training and experience to deal with such matters. If a party to the proceedings believes that specific questions should be asked, it is wiser that he first make them known to his representative. The art of cross-examination lies just as much in knowing when to refrain from asking a question as it does in putting the question. In any event, the conducting officer did invite Claimant to make a statement for the record and Claimant at least twice availed himself of that opportunity. We are mindful of the awards of this Division which hold that a grievant did not receive and fair and impartial hearing when he and his representative were denied the right to introduce evidence or were prohibited from asking questions, however, the instant case does not fall into that category. We therefore find that the conducting officer's ruling did not deprive Claimant of a fair and impartial hearing.

 The second objection has to do with the fact that the operator at Alliance and all members of the train and engine crew were disciplined by the entry of censure on their personal records but no suspension was imposed. The Organization complains that a 5 day suspension to Claimant is disparate treatment for the same offense. Two observations must be made in this connection. Although handled in the same investigation, the discipline meted out to the train and engine crew is not part of the claim in this proceeding hence no comment thereon is necessary beyond noting that the crew was not disciplined for a violation of Rule 208. Moreover, the operator at Northport was suspended for five days. The issue to be decided herein is whether Carrier's discipline of Claimant was excessively severe, unjust and harsh.

 This Board has often noted that it does not presume to substitute its judgment for that of a Carrier or reverse or modify discipline unless the Carrier has acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory manner amounting to abuse of discretion. A Carrier's disciplinary decision is, however, discriminatory "when the Carrier does not apply rules with reasonable uniformity for all employees". Award 18050 - Quinn; accord, Award 5297 - Wyckoff " . the assessment of discipline should also be even-handed"; see also Award 22160 - Weiss.

 A letter dated Play 9, 1980 from Carrier's Assistant Vice-President, Operations states that the operator at Northport was given a 5 day suspension and the operator at Alliance did not receive one because the operator at Northport had the proper address to C & E 5381 instead of it also being transposed. This, it is claimed, provided a check or comparison for the former which the latter did not have, hence the discrepancy in discipline. Be that as it may, Rule 208 mandates that operators must repeat the order at once and observe whether the other operators repeat the order correctly. There is no contention here that Claimant issued an incorrect order which the two operators repeated as
 Award Number 24483

 Docket Number TD-24446

 Page 3

 they heard. Carrier contends that both operators transposed the number 5381 and that Claimant failed to catch the error. Therefore all three violated Rule 208. In assessing discipline against them uniformity and evenhandedness is essential. That the Northport operator was disciplined by a suspension in addition to censure may well be accounted for by his violating some undisclosed rule in addition to Rule 208. For violating Rule 208 the Alliance operator was censured. It follows that Claimant should be similarly treated. Consequently, we find that the discipline of suspension against Claimant was excessive and that he should be compensated for the wage loss suffered.

        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 discipline was excessive.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By

        Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


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

~-l


    J If1 _ .


                  DISUNT OF CARI= MEMBERS

                  TO .

                  AWARD 24483. (DOOM TD-24446)

                  rReferee 3ilagi~

    The rationale for the disposition made in this case was that since the two operators and the Claimant were all in violation of Rule 208, they should receive the same discipline. Yet, despite the Majority's unwarranted attempt to foist uniformity, the Northport operator did serve a suspension for his violation of the rule. Further, there was and is no "undisclosed rule" upon which the Majority can hang its attempted rationalization. The factual basis for the Carrier's action is stated at the bottom of Page 2 of the Award. To supplant such factual evidence with assumption and presumption requires a leap totally beyond the record as developed.

    It is obvious that the Majority should have headed its own counsel as stated in Award 24481 (Silagi)s


        "That the Block Operator may be equally responsible or even responsible to a greater degree for a dereliction in duty in no way absolves Claimant of blame. A train dispatcher has important safety responsibilities. His failure to discharge these responsibilities subjects him to discipline even when

        another is also at fault. Awards 19461 - Devine; 17761 -

        Sabaker; 17163 - Jones; 13399 - 0 'Gallagher."

        We dissent.

        . V. arga

        _

                                W. F. Kuker


                                    C

                                      :

                                D. L fkow


                                J. . 0 CO affe