` -_ T PUBLIC LAW 330ARD N0. 2420
 AWARD NO. 24

 BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEE
 va. .
 CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION

 Docket No, 432

 STA33MENT OF CLAIM:






OP'TN70N OF BOARDS
Claimant was tried on, found guilty of, and disciplined by discharge by Carrier for the following charges:




'per 2420 -2- AWARD NO. 24

 The disciplinary termination eras imposed on claimant because of his alleged participation in an illegal and unauthorized strike at Carrier's Canton, Ohio, Maintenance of Way Shop on September 28 and 29, 1978, by members of Local 3050 of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees employed there.

 We have described the general circumstances of this strike and picketing situation revealed at the hearings thereon in our previous Award No. 1, as well as our opinion on certain procedural and substantive questions raised by Organization there as well as here.

 Turning to the particular facts of the instant situation, the record shows:

 A procedural conflict arose at the outset of the trial of Claimant as it vas going through its preliminary stages, on October 25, 1978. Trial officer asked Claimant by whom he was to be represented. He named two individuals - the District Chairman of Pennsylvania Federation of the Organization and the Vice-Chairman/Secretary-Treasurer of Federation, He was then asked to designate which was his trial "spokesman." Claimant replied that both were to act as such. Trial officer insisted that he name one. District Chairman objected. Trial officer reiterated his insistence on a single spokesman. District chairman requested postponement on the grounds that Claimant was being denied "full representation as he so requested." Request for postponement
 PLB 2420 -3- AWARD NO. 24
was denied. District Chairman stated that he regarded the proceedings as -unfair and partiality shown toward the employer's position" and that he could not -concur with any further proceedings at this time."

 Claimant and District Chairman nevertheless continued in the trial room, while trial officer addressed inquiries to Claimant concerning his alleged participation in the atiike of September 28 and 29, 1978. District Chairman interposed an objection to each of these questions, and Claimant refused to answer them "without my representatives."

 Trial officer then proceeded to elicit testimony from other witnesses with District Chairman and Claimant participating. Said testimony was as follows:

 1. Shop Engineer T, Bucceri testified that he observed an unauthorized work stoppage at the Canton MW Shop en September 28, 1978. At that time, while accompanied by Assistant~Equipment Engineer H.F. Reedy and Assistant Equipment Engineer R.P. Muir, Mr. Bucceri saw Claimant "standing around- with others at approximately 8t30 AM at the main road leading into the plant where at -On Strike- picket sign had been placed in the center of the roadway.

 Mr. Bucceri's further testimony is that he gave a direct order to the groupp.of which Claimant was one, to return to work. (Claimant's regularly scheduled hours were 7:00 AM to 3=30 PM.)
 'FK,B. '142Q ~4- AWARD No. 24

 Claimant did not obey the order, Questioned by District Chairman concerning whether Claimant had engaged in picketing or other overt strike
 movements or encouragement, Mr* HuCZari replied, "That I couldn't say
 because he ryas just standing." .

 2. Mro Reedy testified that at approximately 8s30 AM he observed a group of Canton Shop employees# Claimant among them, standing at a plant entrance xheie an "On Strike"sign was stuck in a cement block. He heard Mr. Aucari notify those present to return to work. None did.

 In smoker to a question-from trial officer as to the part played by Claimant in picketing activities or encouragement thereof, Mr. Reedy responded: *Well* it looked to me just like Hobart was standing there trying to find out what vas going on, if the boys rare carving back to work or not.. As for participation, I can°t answer yea or no."

 3. Mr. Muir testified that while there with Bucceri and Reedy, he recognized Claimant as one of those congregated at approximately 8:3d AM on September 28 at the main entrance to the Shop. He heard Mr. Succeri ask those present to return to work. None did. Claimant did not come in to work on September 28 or 29.
 PLS 2420 , -5- AWARD N0. 24

 Mr. Muir answered in the affirmative, when asked whether he had seen Claimant "engaging, abetting and participating in an unauthorized work stoppage at the MW Shop at approximately 8x30 AM on
 September 28, 1978. He further stated that a strike sign was on display near where Claimant was seen.
September 29, 1978, he sair groups of man congregated at three differ
 ent plant entrances with strike signs displayed near them: at Division
 Road entrance at approximately 3145 PM; at Broadway Road entrance at
 approximately 530 ?Ms at YMCA entrance at approximately 67flO PM.

 He identified Claimant as standing among the group at the Broadway Road entrance at approximately 5130 PM.

 5. Equipment Engineer E.S. Waggoner-testified that he was with Mr. Campitella at that time and made the same identification concerning Claimant's.prasence among the group.

 We disagree with Organization's contention that Claimant was not given a fair and impartial heating. As we have said before, insistence on a single active arguer and interrogator on Cehalf of Claimant
 is not a denial to him of representation and is within permissible, valid procedural authority of a trial officer for expeditious and fair hearing, not in violation of applicable rules or laws.









D _

    FRED WURPBL, JR. ZATION MEMBER


        l

    N.M. BERNER, RRIER MEMBER

    DATED


          ~r.a


            ..li. . ~iy -·i,t,