Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29247
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29377
 92-3-90-3-291
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Thomas J. DILauro 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 Industrial Elevating Transporter Operator J. Goodpaster, effective June 2, 1989 for his alleged violation of '... Operating Within Building Rule 1 and Safety Rules 15, 16, and 17. ***' was arbitrary and capricious, based on unproven charges and in violation of the Agreement (System File SAC-14-89/M4-19-89).

 (2) As a consequence of the afore-cited violation, the Claimant shall be reinstated with all rights unimpaired, his personnel record cleared of the charges against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 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.

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

 The Claimant was assigned as an Industrial Elevating Transporter Operator, and he was assigned to CTEC 722, located at the Gary Sheet and Tin Mill in Gary, Indiana. On May 12, 1989, while Claimant was operating CTEC 722 near Building 25-P, a switch engineer entered the building with the switch engine lights and siren on. The Claimant allegedly entered the building against the warning lights.

 Under date of May 17, 1989, the Claimant was instructed to appear for a Hearing in connection with the charge:
 Form 1 Award No. 29247
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29377
 92-3-90-3-291
 that during your 6:00 a.m., CTEC assignment on
 May 12, :989, and at approximately 9:15 a.m., you
 allegedly operated your assigned vehicle in an
 unsafe and improper manner by allegedly entering
 the facility located at Tract 25-P Gary Sheet and
 Tin Mill against the warning light governing move
 ment at this location at the same time EJE locomo
 tive X1459 was operating on this track providing
 service to this facility."

 After a Hearing, the Claimant was dismissed from the service of the Carrier for his violation of the aforementioned Rule.

 The Organization argued the Claimant was denied his Agreement right to due process because he was not notified in writing of the precise charge against him in violation of Rule 57(a) of the Agreement. The Organization contends the notice of discipline notified the Claimant that a Hearing would be held in connection with the charges of unsafe and improper operation of an assigned vehicle. However, the notice of discipline stated:

The Organization argued, inasmuch as the Claimant was not notified in writing of the precise charge leveled against him prior to the Hearing, he was denied his Agreement right to due process.

 The Carrier maintains the Rules violations cited in the notice of discipline were embodied in the charge. The Carrier asserts the Claimant was charged with a specific action, and the transcript verifies that all parties were clearly apprised and fully aware of the reasons for the Hearing.

 The Organization argued the Carrier failed to present credible evidence that the Claimant operat manner because the Carrier failed to establish entering Building 25-P with the "warning lights" and siren on constituted a violation of any Rule. The organization maintained the C "stop" signals.

 The Carrier argued the testimony evidences that all parties, including the Claimant, were fully and sirens warn against vehicles entering the building because of railroad switching operations. The Carrier indicated the CTEC lacks mobility and maneuverability, so the Carr especially when these pieces of equipment are operating in and around buildings in close proximity t Form 1 Award No. 29247
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29377
 92-3-90-3-291

 The Organization argued the discipline imposed upon the Claimant was arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the Agreement. The Organization noted the Carrier failed to offer testimony to refute the allegations of the Local Chairman. The Organization argued the discipline imposed upon the Claimant was without just and sufficient cause because Rule 57(b) provides:

The Organization contended the Carrier failed to introduce the Claimant's alleged "prior record" was not subject to cross-examination.
demerit system of Discipline because it unreasonably permits the Carrier to im
 pose demerits or any other discipline it might choose, without any showing as
 to how it determines t- 'e number of demerits, and the quantum of discipline for
 any given offense. The Organization further asserts the imposition of disci
 pline in this case is arbitrary and capricious because the Carrier did not
 assess the Claimant with demerits on the letter of discipline.

 The Carrier noted Claimant amassed 80 demerit marks against his personal record. The Claimant wa service as a Carrier truck driver. At the time of the subject disciplinary action that resulted in his dismissal, the Claimant had less than two full years of active Carrier service.

 With respect :o the preciseness of the charges, this Board finds the notice was proper despite the fact that it did not mention a specific Rule violation. As this Board of Investigation is to place Claimant on timely notice as to the specific incident involved, the dat sufficient detail so that Claimant can properly prepare his defense. Thus, initially, he is assured Agreement due process. Third Division Award 21020.

 This Board finds the notice of Investigation in this case fulfilled these requirements. The notice timely notified the Claimant of the specific incident including the date and the approximate time. In addition, the notice provided sufficient factual detail to enable the Claimant to prepare a defense.

 With respect to the substantive charge, this Board finds that there is sufficient probative evidence in the record to establish that the Claimant is guilty of the charge against him. Based on the testimony of the Claimant, the engineer, and the yardaan, the Hearing Officer had substantial evidence to find Claimant violated Carrier Rules by backing his CTEC into the building
 Form 1 Award No. 29247

 Page 4 Docket No. MW-29377
 92-3-90-3-291

 without permission, notwithstanding the warning lights and a siren were operating indicating the
With respect to the disciplinary action, the Board will not set aside discipline imposed by a Carrier unless it is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Third Division Award 26160.




                            By Order of Third Division

Attest: 6;;iLz

        Fancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of June 1992.