Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28717
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29032
 91-3-89-3-459
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Charlotte Gold when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Boo Line Railroad Company

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









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.
 Form 1 Award No. 28717
 Page 2 Docket Ho. CL-29032
 91-3-89-3-459
 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
 dispute involved herein.

At issue in this case is the assessment of discipline to Claimant, as the result of three Investigations. At the first, Claimant was charged with failure to waybill two cars properly. She was assessed a 30-day deferred suspension with a one-year was issued a 15-day deferred suspension, with a one-year probationary period. At the third, Claimant was charged with missing the diversion of 35 cars and was given a 45-day actual suspension, which activated the prior 45-day deferred suspension, resultin covers all three incidents.

 In the first [Claim 1 (A)], occurring on .July 25, 1986, the wrong destination was indicated on two waybills. Claimant acknowledged that a mistake was made, but argued
In the second [Claim 1 (B)], Claimant allegedly failed to comply with two sets of oral instructions on August 13, 1986, and a repetition of the instructions in writing on August 13, for the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. tour and was informed that if she left because of illness, medical documentation would be required. She left work at 11:15 P.M. The third shift Chief Clerk reported that Claimant said she was leaving because of diarrhea. Claimant denied making the statement.

 Claimant maintained that the individual's whose position she was to fill decided to work and thus there was no open position. Carrier argued that there were several positions for her to fill and that when she left, she failed to bring in proper documentation.

 In the third incident [Claim 1 (C)],~flaimant allegedly missed the diversion of 35 cars of potash on November 14, 1986. The Organization argued that this Claim should be dismissed because Carrier failed to hold an Investigation in a timely mann was excessive and that the error that occurred resulted from Carrier's poor procedure for handling hold cars at Bensenville. Carrier, on the other hand, maintained that Claimant was negligent. Lt also argued that the Organization raised no objection to the postponement A the Hearings until two months after it was actually held. If the employees did not agree to the postponement, they were obligated to raise an objection at the Hearing. Given their silence, Carrier could assume mutual.
 Form 1 Award No. 28717
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29032
 91-3-89-3-459

 This Board has reviewed the entire record of these disputes and concludes that there was suffici Investigations to support all of the charges against the Claimant. Claimant acknowledged her mistake in Claim 1 (A), when the wrong destination was indicated on two waybills. H supervision was required was not persuasive, given her level of experience at the time.

 In Claim 1 (B), we find that Claimant acted precipitously in leaving work without the proper authorization to do so. As Carrier noted, there were several positions for Claimant to fill. She was not free to decide for herself that she was no longe required to bring in medical documentation if she left, Carrier was signaling to her the fact that if she elected not to stay, she had to be sufficiently ill so as to warrant medical attention. That would be the only basis for tolerating her absence.

 In conjunction with the Organization's argument that Claim 1 (C) was procedurely defective due to Carrier's failure to hold an Investigation within prescribed time limits, we note that in numerous cases wherein such claims were sustained, a timely objection was raised by the Organization. (See, for example, Third Division Award 24247, wherein there was a "...unilateral postponement of the investig representatives ....)" In the instant case, the Organization neither objected to Carrier's postponements when notified in writing about the delays, nor brought up the issue when the Hearing was finally held. Given that an objection was not raised until had the right to assume that the postponements were mutually acceptable.

 Because of the nature of the infraction, the cost to Carrier due to the error, and the fact that this was the third disciplinary action within a relatively short period of time, the Board cannot conclude that the level of discipline imposed was excessive.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:~.
      Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


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