(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station amployes




1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it arbitrarily and injudiciously suspended Clerk Rey Ramos from its service beginning September 2, 1981, without justification.
2. Carrier's action in suspending Clerk Ramos from service was unjust, arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.
3. Carrier shall now be required to expunge the record of investigation from Clerk Ramos' personal record file and compensate him for ten (10) days' wages lost account Carrier's action.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, a Telegraphic Clerk of thirteen years service,
 was assigned the responsibility for sending telex messages
 regarding cars held at the Corpus Christi, Texas yards due to insufficient
 waybill information on hand. These messages were to be transmitted each day
 before 3:00 P. M. to Laredo, Texas. On August 14, 1981 this information was
 not transmitted. Subsequently, the claimant was notified: ·Report to the
 Trainmaster's Office, Corpus Christi, Texas at 2:00 P. M., Friday, August 21,
 1981, for formal investigation to develop the facts and place your
 responsibility, if any, in connection with a report that you may have violated
 Rule 801 of the General Rules and Regulations of the Texas Mexican Railway
 Company when you failed to send a list of all cars received from connections
 without sufficient waybill information to meet requirement of Tex Mex Permit
 Embargo to Agent at Laredo, Texas, by Telex on Friday, August 14, 1984."








After a hearing the Claimant was suspended for ten (10) days for his "serious violation of Rule 801."
The Organization, on behalf of the Claimant, alleges that: 1) He did not receive a fair and impartial hearing, as required by the contract, since "Carrier's letter of August 17, 1981 to Mr. Ramos fell far, far short of stating in full the 'precise charge(s)' being placed against him as required and mandated by Rule 25 (a)." 2) The "Carrier discipline rendered was not supported by the record surrounding the case." It is their contention that the waybill information had been handled by telephone instead of Telex for a considerable length of time and that this practice was well known, condoned by the Carrier's officials and therefore the Claimant was not culpable.
        The Board must disagree on both counts.


There is nothing'remarkable about the Carrier's notification. The &nploye's Organization contests the precision of the charges but there should be no question in the Claimant's mind nor in the minds of his representatives concerning the incident investigation. Rule 801 similarly is clearly applicable and relevant. At no time did either the Claimant or his representatives indicate in handling this matter on the property that they lacked clarity regarding the infraction or the alleged rule violation.
The record clearly shows that the failure to obtain information on cars without waybill information had been a matter of great concern to the Carrier and that steps had been taken to insure that all employes would use the telex in transmitting this essential information and recording it. The Assistant General Manager had circulated a letter to that effect and the Claimant acknowledged his responsibility to do so.
Three months before this incident the President and General Manager called the clerical employes attention to the seriousness of continued dereliction in this regard. He required a notice to that effect to be posted for three (3) weeks adding "This situation will be corrected. Please be governed accordingly." Thus the Claimant was on notice and warned.
The fact that he and others continued to handle this information by phone does not mitigate the offense. He admitted he did not send the Telex information as he had been directed and admonished to do. Under questioning by Mr. Perez the Claimant said:
        "A -- Mr. Spear wanted to know why a list of cars on hand at Corpus Christi with insufficient waybill information had not been sent to Laredo Friday, August 14th.


        Q -- And what was your answer?


        A -- My duties on Friday, August 14, were changed. I had to familiarize myself with different duties and therefore, I did not send the telex." Transcript p. 5.

            Award Number 24817 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-24662


Thus, based upon the record, the Claimant had not obeyed instructions in this matter and had violated Rule 801 and the Carrier's action was justified.
This is a serious matter and the Board finds no basis for disturbing the Carrier's decision. The claim is 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.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~zo
        Nancy er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May, 1984