PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of Pile Driver Foreman C. M. Reinsch for alleged violation of Rules 'J' and 'M' was without just and sufficient cause (System File 600-207/2579).
(2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired acrd he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed as Foreman, Pile Driver Gang No.
 742. On May 5, 1981, he was notified by the Division Engineer to report for formal hearing to begin at 8:00 A.M., may 14, 1981:











The hearing was held as scheduled. Claimant chose to represent himself in the hearing, which was conducted by Carrier's Terminal Superintendent. On May 22, 1981, claimant was notified by Carrier's Assistant Vice President-Maintenance of Way of his dismissal from service.
                      Locket Number MW-24725


In its submission to the Board the Organization contends that the charge against claimant was not precise as required by Rule 1, Article 23, of the Agreement. In the investigation the only contention that claimant made concerning the charge was that he considered it improper to be charged with violation of more than one rule in the same investigation. There is no proper basis for such objection as made by the claimant. It is well settled that if exceptions are to be taken concerning the letter of charge, or the manner in which the investigation is conducted, such exceptions must be taken prior to or during the course of the investigation; otherwise they are deemed waived. In the appeal of the dispute on the property the General Chairman complained of issues being introduced in the hearing that he considered riot covered by the letter of charge. Such complaint, on appeal, came too late to be properly considered. In its submission to the Board the O;Aanization also complains that the decision following the investigation was not made by the conducting officer. The record shows that no such contention was made in the handling of the dispute on the property, aryl issues or defenses may not be raised for the first time before the board. This principle is so well settled as to require no citation.
Based upon the record, the board finds that substantial evidence was adduced at the hearing in support of the charges against the claimant, and that claimant failed to properly perform his duties as foreman. 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
                                              _C='~V~u \

        That the Agreement was not violated. ,-.,.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied. `,,

                          ~;_Ogo G;iico

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ALUUSTMEP

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. v -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of November, 1983