PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The dismissal of Trackman L. A. Hendricks for alleged violation of "Rule 4143· was without just and sufficient cause (System Docket 290D).

(2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record cleared and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, with a seniority dating from August 7, 1980,
was assigned to Surfacing Gang Y-232, working under the
supervision of Assistant Foreman J. Be11in and Project Engineer A. McNally,
when the occurrence giving rise to the dispute herein occurred.

On June 25, 1981, Claimant was notified to appear for trial on July 6, 1981, on the charge:



Rule "L' of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Rules of Conduct, referred to in the notice of charge, reads:



                    Locket Number MW-25300


The trial was conducted on July 6, 1981, as scheduled. Claimant was present throughout the trial and was represented. A transcript of the trial has been made a part of the record. Following.-the trial, Claimant was notified by certified mail of his dismissal from service. While the discipline notice was dated June 15, 1981 (obviously in error), certified receipts show that the discipline notice was mailed July 17, 1981, and receipted for by Claimant on July 22, 1981.

In the trial substantial evidence was presented in support of the charge against Claimant. There was direct testimony by the Project Engineer that Claimant, while on duty, as advance gang watchman and under pay, was performing no work for the Carrier but was seated in a nearby passenger station with his head bowed, eyes closed and apparently asleep about 1:40 P.M. It is apparent that Claimant took it upon himself to determine that the services of an advance gang watchman were not needed when he left his post of duty and went to the nearby passenger station. Such a decision was properly to be made by supervisory personnel and not by Claimant.

We will deny the claim on the merits, without passing upon the time limit issue raised by the Carrier, or the complaint of the organization as to the date of the discipline notice to Claimant.

        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


Attest4~
Nancy J er - Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 30th day of November 1984.