(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Pere Marquette District)



(a) Carrier violated the parties' Agreement, particularly Discipline Rule 701, in that (1) charg too vague to allow the accused and his representative to prepare a defense; (2) all reference to events occurring ten (10) days prior to the letter of charge dated April 11, 1983 must not be considered in assessing discipline due to Claimant Snyder not being charged 'within ten (10) days of the company's knowledge of the alleged offense' and (3) without prejudice to that position, the discipline administered in this case is excessive for the offense with which charged.

(b) As a consequence of such action, Carrier be required to make Claimant D. F. Snyder whole for wage loss incurred pursuant to paragraph (h) of Discipline Rule 701. [General Chairman File: 83-6-PM. Carrier File: SG-695]"

OPINION OF BOARD: The Parties agree that Claimant was properly charged in
accordance with Rule 701 with failure correctly to perform
his duties over a period of time and failure to maintain his territory as
instructed by his Supervisor. The Carrier had discussed Claimant's lack of
performance and mishandled responsibilities with him on several occasions
prior to notification of a hearing on the charges. It is not disputed that
the discipline of thirty (30) days actual suspension assessed by the Carrier
was proper. However, the Board has determined at this time that the
Claimant's restriction to working in a force under direct supervision has
served its purpose.

In the Board's view, restricting Claimant to a position under direct supervision throughout his work life, which would permanently disqualify him from holding a Signal Maintainer position unless there was also a Foreman, Leading Signal Maintainer assigned to the same territory, is excessive.







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: AVOF- oe-.0' 000;
        Nancy J r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July 1986.