Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28833
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29233
 91-3-90-3-222
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles 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 Trackman J. R. Simons for the alleged '... unauthorized procurement of company material by stealing copper wire at M.P. 83.2 on the Tygart Subdivision on August 10, 1989 ....' was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of the Carrier's discretion and in violation of the Agreemen (Carrier's File 12(89-758) WMR].

 (2) Mr. J. R. Simons shall be allowed the remedy stipulated in Rule 17(f)."

 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.

In August of 1989, the Claimant was notified of an investigation on an allegation that he had stolen copper wire after numerous warnings. He was subsequently dismissed.

 At the Hearing it was shown that the Claimant had been repeatedly warned not to use or remove certain copper wire even though it was technically

 abandoned. Despite the warnings, the Claimant continued his actions concerning the wire, and he Form 1 Award No. 28833
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29233
 91-3-90-3-222

 The Organization has argued a number of procedural impediments dealing with a tape recording of the witnesses, witness self-interest, hearing officer prejudice, etc. Our review of the record fails to convince us that the Organization has demonstrated a basis for the allegations of reversible error, especially when one notes that the Claimant conceded the factual basis for the charges at the investigation.

 One procedural argument does give us pause, however. The Agreement requires that the disciplinary decision will be issued within a certain time frame, yet the Carrier concedes that it was four (4) days late in rendering that decision. Carrier argues, however, that its delay did not prejudice the Employee. The Agreement does not contain a provision which mandates that a claim be granted if there is a time-limit violation.

 We have reviewed the Awards cited by both parties in an effort to resolve the conflict, and we do not find unanimity of opinion. Certain Awards have suggested that a procedural error dealing with time limits results in an automatic exoneration of the diAciplined employee. While such a result is not unfounded when considering the time frame for bringing charges against the Employee, we find no compelling authority for setting aside a dismissal when there is a relatively short delay in rendering the decision. On the other hand, we are unable to find solace in the earlier cited Awards which seem to have merely ignored the Agreements' time limits which were established by the parties, absent a showing of a particular prejudice. Instead, we feel that the proper result is to require a payment to the Claimant for each day of delay. See Third Division Award 26239 and Awards cited therein. Thus we award the Employee four (4) days of compensation concerning the violation of the time-limit requirement.

 Turning to the merits of this dispute, we have certain misgivings as to the result. The Claimant conceded that his actions were improper, and clearly an employee may not substitute his judgment for that of his Supervisors when he has been war when that property is admittedly abandoned property. The record demonstrated that the employee had no prior disciplinary problems in his seven (7) year tenure with Carrier, and he was described as a good, punctual and reliable employee except for his habit of collecting "scrap" items. In this regard, one Supervisor opined that the Claimant seemed to have some type of a "problem" in that regard. < suspension will convince the Claimant to refrain from taking forbidden items. We will restore the Claimant to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, but without compensation for time lost.


Form 1 Award No. 28833
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29233
 91-3-90-3-222
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest:

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of June 1991.

            AWARD 28833, DOCKET MW-29233 E C E1 V c D



Since the award was sustained in part, the small concu~e required is only to the extent that the employe was returned to service with his seniority and all other rights unimpaired.

 The DISSENT is directed towards the Majority's erroneous finding that the appropriate remedy for the Carrier's admitted time limit violation when it rendered the disciplinary decision four days late was to allow the Claimant four days pay. This line of reasoning does violence to the Agreement by effectively negating the language that the parties had agreed upon. As Award 79 of Public Law Board No. 1844 held:















Labor Member's Concurrence and Dissent Award 28833 Page Two





      Claim sustained as indicated in Opinion." (Underscoring in original)


Moreover, the Majority erroneously relied on Award 26239 as support for its decision on the time limit issue. That award dealt with a decision on the time limits under Article V of the 1954 Agreement and the subsequent NDC 16 which has nothing to do with a separately
 Labor Member's Concurrence and Dissent Award 28833 Page Three

 negotiated discipline rule as we have here. This award is palpably erroneous. Therefore, I dissent.

                                      tfully submitted,


                                  D . Bartholomay~ Labor Member