Z. .U~ ;T_~S) IE LTCHISON, TOPEKA A'LZD SANTA FL :t`r_IL~:Y CJ=_~c;':
 TJ ' )
 DI 3P UT::; 0' HEF:ii00D OF h1_IN=ENAdCL OF UAY :ilPLOY ES

 STATE'1ZIT OF CL~Mvi: MLat the Carrier's decision to assess Ma -'.:ant :;tram a~f demerits, and Claimant Braashaw 1LL demerits a_t=r investigation r~rch ti, 1985 was unjust; That the Carrier rw:i eg:p=ge 20 demerits from Claimant Strain's record, and :;~:p;:·.zga 15 demerits from Claimant Bradshaw's record, -e~._:.~burs.nC them for ail-wae Loss aai'e:5enses incurraZ as a result of =attending t ~&e irlvestigation Narch 3, 1965, because a review o tae innvesti~,ation transcript reveals that substantial evidence was not introsuced that indicates the claimants are guilty of v=olatiaa of rules they ware charged with in the Notice o= invest i0~ation.

 Fliv: Ibis Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that the parties =ier=in. are Carrier and employee within the meaning of c_:e ,ail;vf Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this disrute the claimants were notified to attend an investi-anon in Clovis, hew :dexico, on .larch 8, 1935, concerning their allegedly occupying the main track on the Carlsbad District Detaeer. Mile. Post 150 and Hile Post 168 without proper protection for Gan3 64 men and machines and Train SGVRS1-13 at approximately 5.:03 p.-m., February 14, 1965. Pursuant to the investiation, tl~e claimant R. E. Strain was found guilty and assessed 2) demerits. Claimant Bradshaw was found guilty and assessed 15 dezzerits.

 Mae Organization contends that the Carrier did not furnish a radio for the Gang which was requested by the Welding Supervisor at Amarillo and by Division. peonle._.Tae evidence indicates that there was a tele?hone in the area that could be used, oat there is no evidence that the telephone was in working order. Ins crew was occupying the main line without proper protection. .

 All of the evidence indicates that Claimant Strain returned a-2proximately, 4:15 or 4:20 and then was in the clear. The time expired on the order at 4:01 p.m.

 T'aa Organization contends that the Roadmaster offered one claanc
 20 demerits and alleged that he violated three rubs s_:d retsi=na::
 tWo days 1 ater and offered him a seven-rule violation, and t_ien
 for this investigation charged the claimants with sinzeen. rules
 '6_lat were violated. This does s not constitute an improper proceC=a.
 The only recuirement involved is that the e:1'-)ioyee :.Tuft be :lot=-,
 fled of ythe investigation_of the alleged violations. In other
        -- Page 2


words, the Carrier cannot go outside the charge and to violations to find the claimants guilty of another charge.

 Claimant Strain was the Lead Welder and Claimant Bradshaw was the Welder. The evidence is insufficient to find that Claimant Bradshaw was in violation of the rules. He was not occupying the track at the time that the order expired. It is true that the Lead Welder was occupying the track, but certainly he could not be expected to give him instructions or orders to the Lead tATelder.

 The claim for the Lead Welder, R. E._.$train,. is denied and the claim for ~e7:der "D. L. Bradshaw is sustained.

 AWARD: Claim disposed of as per above.

 ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply with this award within t=rty days from the date of this award.

                          Preston . Moose, Chairman


                          Union Member


                            ri&Y Member


Dated at Chicago, IL May 6, 1985