Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28926
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29196
 91-3-90-3-73
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James E. Mason when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (CSX Transportation, Inc. (formerly Seaboard System ( Railroad and Louisville and Nashville Railroad)

Claim on behalf of J.$. Johnson Jr., for reinstatement to service with all compensation and benefits restored, beginning June 9, 1989, and continuing until this dispute is settled, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly, Rule 55, when it did not hold the hearing within the time limits, entrapped the Claimant and did not prove the charges." Carrier file 15-55 (89-56). BRS file: Case No. 7893-SSR(L&N).

 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.

Claimant entered Carrier's service on May 27, 1977. On the date of the occurrence here involved, Claimant was regularly assigned as a Lead Signal Maintainer covering the territory from McKenzie, Tennessee, to Union Street Interlocking, Memphis, Tennessee. This is a vital, important position relative to the proper mainten at approximately 6:50 P.M. during his off-duty time, Claimant was apprehended by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation in the act of purchasing twenty (20) pounds of marijuana from an undercover agent of the T. B. I. At the time Claimant was apprehended, h with him on the seat of the Company owned vehicle a duffle bag containing
 Form 1 Award No. 28926
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-29196
 91-3-90-3-73

 $9,500.00 in cash for the purchase of the marijuana as well as a fully loaded 9mm hand gun. Because Claimant agreed to cooperate with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation in its continuing investigation of the drug related activities, he was not immediat
At approximately 7:35 A.M. on Friday, June 9, 1989, Claimant contacted his Supervisor and informed h that time, the Claimant, the Supervisor and the Signal Engineer all agreed that pending the outcome of the ongoing investigation, Claimant should take June 9 off as a "sick" day and a vacation during the following week - June 12 to 16, 1989.

 By written notice dated June 15, 1989, Claimant was directed to report on June 22, 1989, for a forma events which occurred on June 8, 1989. Included in the notice dated June 15, 1989, was the advice that Claimant was being withheld from service pending the outcome of the Investigation. At the request of the Orgar'sation Representative, the Investigation w time Claimant was present, represented and testified on his own behalf. Subsequently, by written not he was dismissed from Carrier's service effective June 16, 1989. Appeals on behalf of Claimant were initiated by the Organization and handled in the usual manner through the appeals procedures on the property. Failing to reach a satisfactory resolution of for final and binding adjudication.

 The Organization initially argued that this case was procedurally defective because, it says, Claimant was actually withheld from service on June 9, 1989, and, therefore, the Investigation which was initially scheduled for June 22, 1989, was not timely and in violation of the provisions of Rule 55 of the negotiated Agreement. The Organization also argued that Claimant was entrapped by the Carrier; that he should have been accorded the provisions and conditions of the 'Red Block" Agreement; and that the discipline as assessed was excessive in light of Claimant's eleven (11) years of service.

 Carrier, on the other hand, contended that there was no time limit violation; that Claimant's own testimony proved him guilty of the charges; and that the seriousness of the proven charges justified the penalty of dismissal.


Form 1 Award No. 28926
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-29196
 91-3-90-3-73
 investigation. The investigation shall be
 held within ten days of the date charged with
 the offense or held from service, unless
 postponement is arranged for . . . . .

 Time limit Rules as written into the negotiated Rules Agreements are meant to be obeyed. This Referee has so ruled on more than one occasion. Rule 55 is clear, unambiguous and mandatory. However, the fact situation in this case is more than a "strawman" as alleged by the Organization. The testimony and the written re from service until he was so notified by the contents of the letter dated June 15, 1989. The period of time from June 9 to and including June 15 clearly were times during which Claimant was on the payroll either receiving sick pay or vacation pay. The letter of June 15, 1989, withheld Claimant from service on that date and scheduled an Investigation to begin on June 22, 1989, which is within the time limits mandated by Rule 55. The Organization's contention to the contrary is rejected.

 A review of the Investigation transcript does not reveal any entrapment on the part of the Carrier a 9, 1989, to seek the assistance of Carrier's counseling service, while commendable, does not mitigat that an eleven (11) year employee would place himself in a situation such as Claimant was found on June 8. However, this Board cannot, and will not in this instance, say that Carrier was excessive in its administration of discipline by dismissal for t responsible position in Carrier's operations. His use of a Company vehicle to transport a loaded gun while engaging in the unlawful act of purchasing marijuana for further distri Rules as well as his and other's well being. Carrier need not tolerate this type of situation. The Claim for reinstatement is rejected.






Attest:
      Nancy J.AJOW - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of August 1991.