Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28319
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. TD-28441
 90-3-88-3-231
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.

 (American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "Appeal of thirty days suspension (reduced to fifteen days) assessed Train Dispatcher A. P. Luedtke July 22, 1987 - Carrier file NEC-ATDA-SD-70D--
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 July 8, 1987, the Claimant was directed to appear for a formal Investigation on the following charge:
Form 1 Award No. 28319
 Page 2 Docket No. TD-28441
 90-3-88-3-231

 Subsequent to the Investigation, the Claimant was found guilty and he was assessed a thirty day suspension, reduced by the time that he had been held out of service.

 The Organization has pursued its Claim on behalf of the Claimant on procedural and substantive grounds. On the former, it mainly contends that the incident that caused the instant dispute is not the type which should cause the Carrier to hold the Claimant out of service pending Investigation. Further, the Claimant was held from service because of an alleged violation of Rule 107(a). However, when the Claimant was formally charged and a decision rendered, two other Rules were cited, but no mention was made of Rule 107(a). And lastly, on the procedural matter, the Organization points to Rule 19(b) and argues that the Hearing Officer rendered the decision in this matter rather than the Superintendent, as required by the Agreement.

 With respect to the procedural arguments, there is no question that the Claimant was aware of the nature of the charge and, hence, he was not damaged or hampered in his ability to defend himself. Thus, while we understand the Organization this had no adverse effect on the Claimant's rights.

 With respect to the Claimant being held out of service pending the Investigation, it has been consistently held in this industry that charges involving safety, as in this case, may properly be the basis for holding an employee out of service.

 Finally, with respect to the alleged violation of Rule 19(b), the Organization's argument is not without some substance on a technical basis. However, this Board finds that this is not reason to set the matter aside. The Hearing Officer is required to convey to the deciding authority, by one means or other, his views as to the guilt of the party to the charges. Furthermore, in this case, th on the property by letter to the General Chairman, that a modification to the disciplinary hearing procedure had been made. All-in-all, we find no basis on procedural grounds for deciding this matter in favor of the Organization.

 Turning to the merits of the case, we find sufficient evidence that the Claimant failed to issue necessary instructions. We agree that the operator at Fair Tower also v that does not absolve the Claimant from properly performing his duties.


Form 1 Award No. 28319
 Page 3 Docket No. TD-28441
 90-3-88-3-231
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest: _

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of March 1990.