Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27023
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-26783
88-3-85-3-611
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Delaware and Hudson Railway Company



On behalf of S. J. Sorrell for all pay lost account of being suspended 14 days for alleged failure to perform monthly maintenance on his assigned territory, failure to report on Form 1130, failure to report daily activity and failure to properly maintain batteries on his assigned territory. Carrier file: EW 3.84."

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.



On September 27, 1984, Claimant was notified to attend an investigation in connection with the f



Form 1 Award No. 27023
Page 2 Docket No. SG-26783
88-3-85-3-611







The hearing was held on October 19, 1984. As a result, Claimant was found guilty of charges 1, 3, 4 and 5 and was assessed a 14-day suspension. The Organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging the suspension.

In reviewing the procedural dispute between the parties, it is apparent to this Board that the parties have generated conflicting views as to the proper procedures to process a discipline appeal (Rule 71) as opposed to the appeal of a time claim (Rule 75). In view of this conflict and the facts and circumstances of this case, we shall decide it on its merits. However, this Board suggests that the parties confer and restate their agreed-upon appeal process for both discipline cases and time claim cases in one letter so that both parties are well advised as to what is necessary to properly effectuate an appeal in the f
With respect to the merits of the case, this Board finds that there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of failure to properly perform his duties. In addition, the on-the-property handling of this case reveals that Carrier violated Rule 72 when it failed to provide the Organization, as well as this Board, a complete copy of the trial record. The Carrier did not refute the Organization's contention t trial record were included in the transcript." No exhibits were attached to the copy of the transcript furnished to the Board.

In view of the clear violation of the Agreement, we have no recourse but to uphold the claim.
Form 1 Award No. 27023
Page 3 Docket No. SG-26783
88-3-85-3-611






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy Jr - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of April 1988.