Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28685
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29147
 91-3-89-3-589
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Laborer L. Nez for alleged violation of Rule G on July 8, 1988 was arbitrary, unjust and in violation of the Agreement (System File D-121/880709).

 (2) The Claimant shall be reinstated in the Carrier's service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, he shall be allowed to enroll in a Navajo ADEPT Program and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered beginning July 8, 1988 and continuing until his reinstatement with all rights and benefits."

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

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 The basic facts of this case are clear and unmistakable. Claimant was a track laborer who had many years of seniority with the Carrier. The Organization says that the Claimant hadt"thirty five (35) years of service with this Carrier." Carter says he "As originally employed - - - on August 31, 1977." Regardless of which number we accept, the Claimant was not a new man in the employ of the Carrier. On July 8, 1988, (a Friday), the Claimant was assigned to a System Gang which was working-in the vicinity of Downey, Idaho. The Claimant did not perform service with his gang on July 8, 1988. The Organization says "On July 8, 1988, it was necessary for the Claimant to absent himself from his assignment for that one (1) day." The Hearing transcript which makes up cons case reflects the following:
 Form 1 Award No. 28685
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29147
 91-3-89-3-589
 "Testimony of Heat Control Engineer Woodie
 That morning when they did roll call, we were missing
 him[Nez]. I don't know if anybody tried to look for

Later in the hearing transcript, the Claimant answered "No" when asked " - - had you requested to take the day off from anyone of authority on the gang?" It does not appear from the record of this case that the Claimant was authorized to be absent from his gang on July 8, 1988.

 The record does indicate that at approximately 5:00 PM on July 8, 1988, the Claimant was found by a Carrier Officer lying face down on the ground in the vicinity of the house track switch at Downey, Idaho. Claimant was aroused by the Carrier Officer who determined from Claimant's appearance, demeanor, speech and smell that he was under the influence of intoxicants. The Claimant was removed from service pending a Hearing which was held on July 20, 1988. At the hearing, thb Claimant was present and represented. Following completion of the Hear August 8, 1988, that he had been found at fault for being on Carrier property under the influence of alcoholic beverages and that he was dismissed from the service of the Carrier.

 Appeals on behalf of the Claimant have been advanced through the normal appeals processes on the Carrier property. Failing to reach a satisfactory resolution thereon adjudication.

 The Organization in its presentation to the Board has raised three primary issues, namely:



The Carrier, on the other hand_ insists that there were no procedural errors in its handling of this case; that there is more than substantial evidence to support assessed was reasonable in light of the seriousness of the proven charge and especially in light of Claimant's prior discipline record which contained a previous dismissal from service for violation of Rule "G".

 We have reviewed the entire record which exists in this case. We have heard and considered the presentations made by the respective advocates at this Board. We are convinced that the record as it exists in this case supports the action as taken by Carrier.
 Form 1 Award No. 28685
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29147
 91-3-89-3-589

 The letter dated July 8, 1988, which withheld Claimant from service and which outlined a charge and scheduled a Hearing thereon clearly shows that a copy thereof was addressed to both the General Chairman and Assistant General Chairman. At the Hearing, this letter was introduced into and made a part of the Hearing transcript. Claimant had representation throughout the Hearing. There was no indication in the Hearing record to suggest the Representative was not prepare and there has been no probative evidence presented which would indicate that the provisions of Rule 48(c) dealing with notification to the employee and his Representative General Chairman and Assistant General Chairman have not been complied with.

 The withholding of Claimant from service pending charges and a Hearing are permitted by paragraph (o in this case was not prejudicial to Claimant. Neither did it constitute a situation in which Claimant wars dismissed without a Hearing. The dismissal from service followed the completion of the Hearing at which Claimant was present, was represented a
The fact that the Claimant may not have been able to speak fluent English has been carefully considered by this Board. We note with particular interest the testimony in the Hearing transcript where Claimant answered "Yes" when asked if he was ready to proceed with the Hearing. He answered "Yes" when he was asked if he was conversant with and fully understood the Rules with which he was charged. He answered "Yes" when asked if " - it is okay if he [A. J· Woodiej interprets for you?" In fact he answered "Yes" twice to the same question concerning the use of Mr. Woodie as interpreter. From the evidence of record in this c to speak fluent English was a deterrent to his receiving a fair and impartial Hearing.

 As to the Organization's contention relative to Claimant not understanding Rule "G", we again turn t service for being intoxicated while on Carrier property. He answered "Yes" when asked if he had been present at gang meetings where Rule "G" was described. The record clearly from service in May 1986 for being in violation of Rule "G" by being in an intoxicated state with alcoholic beverages on his person. Following his previous dismissal, C for the Rule "G" violation had no salutary effect on him. We will not overrule the decision of the C Rule "G" violation.

 However, we have studied with considerable interest the Organization's plea for application of the D Form 1 Award No. 28685
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-29147
 91-3-89-3-589

 June 16, 1987, to the Claimant. Of course, it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Board to order such action inasmuch as the Agreement specifically provides that the program "sh We would, however, suggest that consideration be again given to possible application of this program considerable service with the Carrier and who, according to the officer who found him and charged him, is "- - right there most of the time."




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. 0Y- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1991.