Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29446
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-30147
 92-3-91-3-589
 The Third DivtsL.Dn consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee 3arry E. Simon when award was rendered.

 (Brothernood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim o~ the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal ~f Section Foreman G. E. Turner because he was allegedly, '... observed under the influence of alcoholic beverages while operating a Company vehicle L-: the vicinity of the 10 Interstate at Garey Avenue in violation or ,enerai Rules A, B, D and G, as well as Safety Rules 607, 609, 4150 and .156....' :n June 27, 1990 at 5:35 A.M., was arbitrary, capricious, based ·)n unproven charges and in violation of the Agreement (System File D-143/910096).

 (2) The Claimant shall be reinstated to the Carrier's service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record cleared of the charges leveled against him and he ;fall be compensated for all wage loss suffered, beginning November 30, 1990, as a result of his unjustified dismissal."

 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.


violating Rule G by operating a Carrier vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and failing to notify the Carrier of the incident. According to the record of the Investigation, ::he Carrier received a notice on June 28, 1990, which indicated the California Highway Patrol had impounded a company vehicle. A Carrier Special .Agent l.)oKed into the matter and discovered the vehicle had been impounded in -:onnection iith Claimant's arrest for driving under the influence, with a suspended driver's license, and without proof of insurance. This information was communicated to Claimant's supervisor on July 12, 1990, whereupon a Hearilg was scheduled. Claimant was removed from service pending the Hearing.
 Form 1 Award No. 29446
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-30147
 92-3-91-3-589

 initially, the Organization contends the Investigation was defective because it was not held within thirty days of the June 28 notice to the Carrier. We do not find this to hold its Investigation within thirty calendar days "from the date of the occurrence to be :avestigated or from the date the Company has knowledge of the occurrence to be investigated." The June 28 notice merely informed the Carrier that the vehicle had been impounded. This gave no indication Claimant might be in violation of Carrier Rules. It was not until it was found that the vehicle was impounded because of Claimant's arrest, as well as the circumstances of that .arrest violation was in evidence. While other time limit arguments were raised by the Organization ~)r the first time before this Board, and therefore cannot be considered, we must reject the argument advanced by the Organization during the handling of this dispute on the property.

 With respect to the merits of the discipline, we find that there is substantial evidence to suppor: Carrier's charge against Claimant. Claimant made no effort to refute any of the evidence submitted by the Carrier. A review of Claimant's prior disciplinary record shows he had been dismissed in 1987, and had been found guilty of engaging in an altercation only one month prior to the incident involved herein. In that case, Claimant waived his right to a Hearing and accepted alternate discipline in lieu of a sixty day suspension. We do not find anything in the record which would cause us to modify the Carrier's decision.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: err
 an J. Dev ·xecutive Secretary
        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of October 1992.