Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26945
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-26426
 88-3-85-3-156
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gil Vernon when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company



1. Carrier violated Rule 21 of the Agreement when under date of April 19, 1984, it assessed a thirty (30) day suspension against Mr. D. L. Thoma on the basis of a formal investigation held at 9:00 A.M. that same date.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. D. L. Thoma for all time lost as a result of this suspension and to remove all references of the charges, investigation and suspension from his service record.

1. Carrier violated Rule 21 of the Agreement when under date of April 19, 1984, it assessed a thirty (30) day suspension against Mr. D. L. Thoma on the basis of a formal investigation held at 9:20 A.M. that same date.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. D. L. Thoma for all time lost as a result of this suspension and to remove all references of the charges, investigation and suspension from his service record."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Form 1 Award No. 26945
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-26426
 88-3-85-3-156

 The first Claim before the Board has its genesis in a letter of charge dated April 17, 1984. On that date, the Claimant was directed to attend an investigation as follows:













Subsequent to the investigation, the Claimant was assessed the discipline now on appeal before the Board.

 The second Claim relates to the following charge, which was also set forth in a letter dated April 17, 1984:















He was given a 30-day suspension for this incident as well.

 Regarding the first incident, the Organization emphasizes that the delay involved was minimal. While it is true, it was completely unnecessary. The Claimant's testimony made it clear that he knew that it was his responsibility to properly align basically assumed that the train would be operating up the Shore Line Subdivision, and did no Form 1 Award No. 26945
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-26426
 88-3-85-3-156

 sheet to determine what the proper alignment should be. Moreover, he had the order sheet available to him, and also had a dispatcher phone with which he could contact the dispatcher. Yet he failed to take any action to make sure proper alignment had been effected. Thus, his plain disregard for his duties compels some discipline. It is also our opinion that a 30-day suspension was not inappropriate in view of his past record which included other similar incidents. It is noted that one such prior incident occurred less than a year before and also resulted in a 30-day suspension.

 The Claimant's guilt on the second charge is also substantial. However, 30 days is excessive for some degree, he wasn't grossly negligent or plainly negligent to such a degree to justify a 30-day suspension. Accordingly, the suspension is reduced to five days and the Claimant will be compensated for the difference.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. )*t - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of March 1988.