(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Mr. Kennedy shall have his record cleared of any and all
charges which may have resulted from the incident which
occurred on June 26, 1985,...and he shall be compensated for any and all lost
wages."



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 June 26, 1985, a near collision occurred based on a train passing two successive red signals and coming close to another train. Without question, knowledge of this oc
On July 2, 1985, the Claimant, a Train Dispatcher, was notified to be present "as a witness" (not as a principal) in a formal investigation concerning "the failure of the through the Automatic Interlocking at Shelton on June 26, 1985." On July 11, the Claimant was notified that this investigation was being postponed. On the same date the Claimant was notified of a hearing scheduled for July 18, 1985 "to develop the facts and determine responsibility" for failure of the train to "operate properly and safely." The hearing was held on July 18, and as a result the Claimant was given a disciplinary suspension based on the Carrier's determination of his share of responsibility for the incident.




Form 1 Award No. 27209
Page 2 Docket No. TD-27166
88-3-86-3-368















July 11 was obviously more than ten days following the "occurrence" and was also more than ten days beyond the Carrier's "knowledge of the occurrence" (i.e., the near m 11 notification to the Claimant as a principal (rather than as a "witness") by stating that it was not until July 2 or 3 that there was an opportunity to review the tapes of the interchange between the Claimant and the train crew and that it was on this "knowledge" that the revised investigation notice was issued (within 10 days of July 2 or 3).

Rule 27 must be interpreted as written, with the understanding that the parties have mutually agreed to be bound by its terms. There are numerous instances where the notice of hearing limitation goes beyond ten days from the "occurrence" because the Carrier did not have "knowledge of the occurrence (emphasis added)" until some later time. Here, however, the Carrier would extend this beyond the occurrence itself to some point when it developed additional information based on its investigation of the already known "occurrence."

Rule 27(b) simply does not provide for this. The "occurrence," as noted above, was on June 26 and the Carrier had immediate knowledge thereof.

Rule 27(a) provides that a Train Dispatcher may not be disciplined "without proper hearing as provided in this Rule 27." Such "proper hearing" clearly applies to conformance with the requirements of Rule 27(b). Among many instances holding to the same effect is Third Division Award 19275 stating:


Form 1 Award No. 27209
Page 3 Docket No. TD-27166
88-3-86-3-368
the claim on this basis, without passing upon the
question as to the responsibility on the part of
the claimant for the accident involved. See Awards
17145, 17081, 14497, 14496, 8714."

An earlier instance of the same reasoning is Third Division Award 6446 stating as follows:



Awards cited by the Carrier to the contrary appear to be instances where the Carrier had belated knowledge of the "occurrence" itself and not to information developed following knowledge of the incident.

With this conclusion, examination of other procedural matters or the merits of the case is unnecessary.






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. D -Executive Secret awry


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of July 1988.