(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brother
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail Cor
 poration (Conrail):

 On behalf of L. E. Thompson for all time lost account of being removed from service in violation of Rule 6-A-1 of the current Agreement.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant a Signalman/Maintainer, was removed from service
 on September 10, 1984, pending an investigation in con
 nection with a derailment which occurred on September 8, 1984. Following a
 formal Hearing on October 3, 1984, Claimant was dismissed from service.

 The instant Claim is based upon the Organization's contention that the Carrier's handling of this matter was procedurally defective in that this was not a proper case for suspension pending a hearing. At issue is the application of Rule 6-A-1 of










It is the Organization's position that, pursuant to the foregoing Rule, Carrier must meet two conditions before an employe can be removed from service pending investigation: (1) the employe must be suspected of having committed a major offense; _and (2) it must be shown that his retention in service could be detrimental. Though the Organization acknowledges that Carrier could reasonably have suspected that Claimant allegedly committed a major offense, there was no evidence presented that his retention in service would have been harmful to himself, another person, or the Carrier. Lacking this evidence, Carrier failed to establish that both required conditions of Rule 6-A-1 (b) had been met, the Organization asserts.
                        Docket Number SG-26561


Carrier contends that its managerial prerogative in determining what constitutes a major offense, and its right to withhold employes suspected of committing such offenses, has long been held by the Board. In this case, the Claimant was properly withheld from service and no violation of Rule 6-A-1 has occurred, Carrier stresses, and the Organization's unsupported allegations to the contrary do not constitute a basis for sustaining this Claim.

 This Board has reviewed all the evidence and supporting documents in this case, and it finds that the Carrier had substantial reason to withhold the Claimant from service pending a hearing. Rule 6-A-1(b) specifically allows the Carrier to withhold an employe from service when a major offense has been committed. We do not find it unreasonable that Carrier determined that Claimant's alleged involvement in the September 8, 1984, derailment constituted a major offense obvious detriment and threat to the safety and well-being of not only the Claimant, but other employes and the public as well. We will not substitute our judgment for the Carrier's when the record indicates that it reasonably exercised its managerial discretion in removing Claimant from service under Rule 6-A-1.

        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:
        Nancy J./iffer - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of August 1987.