"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier withheld Mr. G. A. Black from service beginning October 20, 1992 and changed the effective date of the thirty (30) days of suspension imposed upon him from April 6, 1992 to October 23, 1992 [System File GAB-9279/12(93-108) SSY1.

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant G. A. Black shall be compensated at his Group A, Class 1 Machine Operator's pro rata rate of pay for all wage loss suffered beginning October 20, 1992 and continuing until he is allowed to return to service."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Following an Investigation concerning the Claimant's operation of a Burro Crane and a consequent injury to himself, the Carrier issued a disciplinary letter reading in pertinent part as follows:

"As a result of your violation of CSX Safety Rule 366 as proven in the investigation, you will serve thirty (30) days actual suspension starting April 6, 1992 and will not bid or work on any boomed equipment for six (6) months from the end of your suspension. During the 6 month suspension from working the boomed equipment, you will attend a Safety Skill Seminar class on the Atlanta Division to improve your knowledge on boomed equipment."

A claim was initiated concerning this discipline. On September 8, 1992, Special Board of Adjustment No. 1037, ,ward 30 denied the claim. This Award referred to the Claimant as having been "assessed discipline of a thirty-day actual suspension starting April 6, 1992."

At the time of the investigative Hearing and extending beyond the date of the issuance of SBA No. 1037, Award 30, the Claimant was disabled from working based on his injury which had been the subject of the discipline. He was found physically qualified to return to duty on October 20, 1992. The Claimant was then advised that he would be required to serve the originally imposed 30-day suspension commencing October 23.

The Organization argues that this action improperly changed the terms of the disciplinary action which stated the Claimant would be subject to a suspension "starting April 6, 1992." In response, the Carrier states that the purpose of a "suspension" would be ineffective if it were not served at a time when the employee was available for work.

As a preliminary matter, the Carrier finds the claim defective in that at no time during the on-property claim handling procedure did the Organization cite any Agreement provision allegedly violated by the Carrier. In its Submission, the Organization relies on Rule 39. Because this Rule was not mentioned in the on-property handling, the Carrier contends the Board may not give it consideration.

The Board agrees with the Carrier that citation of Rule 39 comes too late. This, however, does not invalidate the claim. The claim is simply that the Claimant was withheld from work for 30 days commencing October 23, 1992 without any reason and in direct rejection of the terms of the disciplinary action.

As argued by the Organization, the Carrier was fully aware that the Claimant was disabled at the time the discipline was imposed, following the investigative Hearing. The Carrier relies on the use of the word "actual" in reference to the suspension, but this cannot erase the inclusion of the April 6 date. The Carrier's discipline notice could well have imposed a suspension to be served commencing with the Claimant's recovery and physical qualification for work. It did not do so. The suspension was imposed "starting April 6, 1992." In the absence of any possible ambiguity in this instruction, the Board has no basis to speculate on the reason for the selection of the April 6 date.

The claim will be sustained. For clarity, however, the imposition of a 30-day disciplinary suspension remains on the Claimant's record.

AWARD