Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 STATZME7IT OF MUM: "Claim on behalf of Extra Gang Forema:n., Henry Phillips
 _ Sub-Division j1i-r of the Ohio portion of the Ohio-Newark
 Division for the difference in pay between what he
 receives as a Trackman and what he should have received
 as an Extra Gang Foreman beginning July 12, 1972 and all
 dates thereafter or until he is reinstated to the position
 of Extra Gang Foreman account of being unjustly and unreason
 ably demoted from the position of Extra Gang Foreman to
 Trackman as per Mr. A. T. McArthur, Superintendent's
 letter dated July 12, 1972, File 63-B for violation of
 operating Rules 7, 35, 1651, 1652, and 1654 on June 2,
 1972 while working on the track at Worthingt6n Ave., on
 the above date."










rd ,
 . -, .PL. Board to. 173.0 `~ (2) - -. AWARD No. 9
 tai
 Petitioner concedes that Claimant did, in fact$violate the
 aforementioned operating Rules. However,, in view of Claimant's
 long service with the Carrier (25 years) as a Track Foreman,
 and in light of the mitigating circumstances surrounding
 the incident,, Petitioner argued that the demotion was
 "ruthless, unreasonable, and uncalled, for." Furthero .
 Petitioner alleged that Carrier violated the Agreement by
 not furnishing the Vice Chairman of the Organization with a
 copy of the discipline notice within twenty days following
 the hearing. Carrier maintained that this was an inadvertent
 oversight and did not adversely affect the status of the
 matter. On this point Third Division Award 11775, treating
 with an almost identical allegation, stated, in part:
 ". . We hold to the general view that procedural
 requirements of the agreement are to be complied with
 but we are unable to agree that Carrier's failure in
 this regard, under these circa-mstances, was a fatal
 error which justifies setting aside the discipline
 ultimately imposed."
 The foregoing rationale is appropriate in this instant case.
 Obviously, it goes without saying that a Carrier's Operating
 Rules are promulgated to be followed by employees subject


                      it does take more time to do so." Petitioner stated further,

                      "The technical violation of the rules of course Is present."


                      Therefore, we are asked to consider only the basic question -

                      of whether,, under the circumstances in this case,, the Claimant

                      was disciplined excessively in view of his long service and

                      his prior satisfactory work record.

'PL.Board 4o. 110 `· (3) AWARD 7t6:!9

 Awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board are legion on the matter a Carrier's right to assess discipline where an employee has been found guilty of rules violations. For example, and there are numerous others of like substance,
 Award 17914., stated in part: 'i

                          i

"The precedent is well established that this Board should not substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier in discipline cases where it has produced substantial evidence that the offense charged was committed. " However,, in the instant case, we are persuaded that in view' of Claimant's past record and long service that he be afforded the opportunity to return to the position of Foreman, with seniority as such unimpaired,, having suffered sufficiently the penalty of demotion. It was brought out at the hearing in this case that Claimant was reinstated to the position of Foreman on November 26, 1973. Under those circumstances., it is our opinion that the primary objective of Claimant has been satisfied, and we will therefore dismiss the claim.

 AWARD:

 Claim dismissed.

 A ~. unningha:a, ~~_)loyee Member

 Baltimore, Maryland March 11~ 1974
            F..:'/

ej~l P, /?~ %~~, s

 C. Robert Roadley, ISeutral ~:amoer

        ,70 0


        L. W. Barks, Carrier D~ember