Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29051
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. TD-29250
 91-3-90-3-131
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.

 (American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "Appeal of suspension from service assessed Train Dispatcher D. M. Strelczyk, 8/2-6/89. Carrier file 10-(89-26)"

 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.

The Claimant was charged with responsibility for failure to protect properly certain equipment movement on May 11, 1989.

 Subsequent to a number of postponements at the request of the Organization, a Hearing was conduc (5) day suspension.

 When the Claimant's position was abolished, he did not have sufficient seniority to transfer to placed into a furloughed status. Nonetheless, it was recognized by the parties in 1988 that employees in Claimant's category could be used, from time to time, to perform extra work. Those employees were entitled to a "bonus" of $10.00 per day as well as payment of mileage, meals and lodging, etc. (See Side Letter No. 12).
 Form 1 Award No. 29051
 Page 2 Docket No. TD-29250
 91-3-90-3-131

 The Claimant was performing service in the Jacksonville office pursuant to the Side Letter when he was charged in this matter. The Organization asserts that he was Center Agreement (JCTDC) and thus the charges were not submitted in a timely fashion. To the contrary, Carrier argues that the Claimant was subject to the basic "Chessie" Agreement and thus, the notice of charges was timely. While we might suppose that there is some degree of posturing involved, since the decision on the applicable Agreement controls the procedural objection, we note that the documents of record are not crystal clear on the subject, nor does the siae letter state which Agreement controls. Under those circumstances, the Board feels that basic Agreement under which the Claimant's rights have accrued, and we determine that the basic Ches must be dismissed.

 Other procedural objections were raised concerning tapes, witness production, etc. We have studied the record and find that the Claimant's basic rights were protected. He was given the opportunity to recess the proceedings to secure additional witnesses, etc. but elected not to.

 Concerning the merits of the dispute, the record shows that this Claimant gave permission to two separate trains to occupy the same track, and that he created a potentially dangerous condition. A consideration of the various contentions, positions and urgings of the Claimant and the Organization does not alter that excessive under the circumstances.

        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: -6Z19 dv~
        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of November 1991.