PARTIES) T:i% ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY TO ) DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim that former Machine Operator Moses Mar shall, Los-Angeles Terminal Division, be reinstated with seniority, vacation and all rights unimpaired and pay for all wage loss commencing November 17, 1983 continuing forward and(or otherwise made whole, as a result of his removal from service pursuant to formal investigation held October 14 and 21, 1933, for violations of Rules 2, 14, 16, and 31(b), General Rules for the Guidance of Ema loges .

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that the parties
 herein are Carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway
 Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute the claimant was charged with violation of Rules 2, 14, 16, and 31(b), General Rules for the Guidance of Employes, For_i 2626 Standard., 1973. The investigation was held on October 14 and 21, 1903. The claimant was charged with being absent from duty without proper authority on August 25 and 26, and his allegedly furnishing an excuse slip from the a-an 0Bernardino Community Hcepital that had been altered from its original statement.

 The investigation was opened on October 14, but was postponed until October 21 on the basis that the claimant possibly did not receive the notice to attend the investigation.

 All of the evidence has been reviewed, including Exhibit -No. 1 which is the release to work and Exhibit No. 2 which is an occuaational injury report. The Organization contends that the claimant was removed from service November 17 and the decision in the instant case was issued on the same date, advising the claimant that he was dismissed for allegedly altering the doctor's excuse slip. The Organization contends that the Carrier had no further jurisdiction or the authority to assess discipline. On that basis the Union urges that the investigation held on November 14 and 21 saouid be null and void.

 The investigations were held on November 14 and 21. At that time the claimant was still in the employ of the Carrier. rue decision say have been determined after the claimant had been terminated, but such decision could properly be made at that time. It should be noted that tae Carrier should recognize that discipline should be issued promptly and that that is being stretched to its ii_aits.

                                          Pa.-e 2


After reviewin.- all of the evidence, the Board finds t-'iat the Carrier had Justification for reachi-LI.- tHe decision TA(hich was Made. If the clai=ant believed, in fact, that the testimony was incorrect, he could have requested a postponement and requested testimorr the individual in eae doctor's office who presented him the e.,,cuse slip, if, in deed, it wasnot Krause.

 Under the circum tances, there is no justification for setting the discipline aside.

 AWARD: Claim denied.

                        Pr~gt~n Moore, C hairman


                              2

                        Union Member


                        <Aff&MO4 I

                        C=ibr~ 1,1eamer


bated at Chicago, TL February 26, 1985