Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28184
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27868
 89-3-87-3-389
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Mary H. Kearney when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Maine Central Railroad Company/Portland Terminal
 ( Company

1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on March 17, 1986 it dismissed Clerk Bruce M. Toner from service of the Carrier.

 2. Carrier shall be required to reinstated Clerk Bruce M. Toner with all rights and privileges unimpaired and compensate him for all time lost as a result of such violative action.

 3. Carrier shall further be required to compensate Clerk Bruce M. Toner interest at the rate of 18X per annum compounded on the anniversary date of this claim for all monies due it Item 2, supra."
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.

By letter dated March 17, 1986, the Carrier dismissed Claimant, a Clerk, from service for an incident which occurred on March 12, 1986, wherein Claimant was arrested for obstructing a railroad crossing with his truck as a train approached. The Organization and Claimant requested a Hearing on March 22, 1986. A Hearing was scheduled for April 10, 1986, but was postponed. During this time period the BMWE was involved in a strike action against the Carrier. The Hearing was ultimately convened on August 5, 1986. Based on the Findings at the Investigation the Carrier upheld Claimant's discharge.
 Form 1 Award No. 28184
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-27868
 89-3-87-3-389

 The Organization contends that the Carrier violated Rule 36 when it failed to timely grant a Hearing on the charges against him and that this error by the Carrier is sufficient to overturn any discipline imposed upon Claimant.







Construing the evidence in the record most favorably to the Carrier it is apparent that the General Storekeeper, the appropriate Carrier officer, did not receive the request for a Hearing until sixteen days after it had been sent and that the delay was caused at least in part by the work stoppage. On April 7, 1986, the date he received the request, the General Storekeeper attempted to immediately sc record shows that none of these parties received the notice in time to allow them to attend the Hearing. The Carrier then did not hold a Hearing on the charges against him until August 5, 1986.

 In defense of the delay the Carrier maintains first that the Organization "tacitly" agreed to po to affirmatively show that the Carrier and Organization so agreed. Instead a letter of appeal, dated August 26, 1986, from the General Chairman to the Carrier's Director of Huma several occasions requested a Hearing. This assertion was unchallenged in subsequent correspondence in the record to conclude that the decision to postpone the Hearing was mutual.

 Secondly, the Carrier states that it delayed the formal Investigation because it presumed that Claimant as a Union member would not cross the picket line to attend a Hearing. The cases cited by the Carrier in support of this position demonstrates that the Board has previously recognized the existence in the industry of the presumption that Union members will not usually cross a picket line. (Third Division Award 20427. See also, Second Division Award 4494.)

 The question before us is whether the Carrier was justified in relying on this presumption when Form 1 Award No. 28184
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-27868
 89-3-87-3-389

 beyond the 10 days allowed under Rule 36. The Rule at issue concerns a procedural process to whi involved in the decision to postpone a Hearing. However, the Carrier failed to pursue this available and agreed-to avenue as its first recourse and instead chose to rely on the given the parties intent as expressed in Rule 36(e), the Carrier prematurely and improperly relied on the presumption. In so doing the Carrier violated Rule 36.

 In light of our finding that the Carrier violated procedural requirements of the Agreement, we w Claimant. (Third Division Award 17145.)

 In addition to reinstatement and compensation for lost time, the Organization seeks as remedy compensation in the form of 18 percent per annum interest. In Third Division Award 24710 the Board stated:

The reasoning underlying the above is applicable to the instant case. Accordingly, we will not s





                              By Order of Third Division


Attest: ,
        Nancy J. ejsW - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of November 1989.