NATIONAL MEDIATIOs BOARD
 PUBLIC LAV BOARD NO.2472

 SOUrHERH PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION GOMPAHY
 (Pacific Lines)

DNITtD TRANSPORTATION t1NION
 (Switchmen)

 Org. File: &A-81-3-DISC

 CG. File; YDhi-B-ORE-0-g.

 AWARD too. 96 645E NO. 96

 Public Law Board Ho. 2472 was established pursuant to the proyiaions of Public Law Eg-·56 and the applicable rules of the National Mediation Saaret. The parties, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (the Carrier) and the iTnitecl.Trilntpoxtatian Union (the OrganizatioaJi are dully designated carrier sad organization representatives as these terms era defined is Sections and 3 of the! Railway Labor Act.
 After htar£nq and uprsA the record, thin Board finds that it has jurisdiction to rasnive the following claim: "Claim is made for a days pay at the yard rate of payment applicable for Switchmen W: C. Wilson, fir.. October It I99Gr and for the removal o t thirty ! 30) demerits assessed leis discipline r0cordt Salem Yard."
 The Claimant W. C. Wilson, Jr., entered the Carrier's 20rViCe at a Suitahasxn an July 71, 1952.
 As the result of Incidents occurring on August 20* 1980, the Carrier cited the Cisitnant for allegedly failing to have a COPY Of
 PL6 ho. 2472 Case/Award No. 94 Page Two the Oregon Division Timetable Number 9, effective Sunday, luagust 3, 1980 at 12=41 a.m., in his possession as required while on duty as a Switchman in Salem Yard. It was contended that the Claimant had violated that portion of the Carrier's Rule ar which provides that employees whose duties are in any way affected by the timetable must have a copy of the current timetable and supplements, if any, immediately available while on duty.
 An investigation Was conducted ors September 25. 1990, and the Carrier concluded trial the Claimant had violated the Rule in question and accordingly a discipline of thii°ty 130) demerits was assessed against the C1aima.tt's record.
 This Board has reviewed she totality of the evidence sub mitted at the forrmal investigation as well as the arguaants of the Organization and the Carrier.
Claimant was technically in Vl.olation of failing to have the appropriate timetable an his person and to have the timetable iri proper or4er.
 Rouevgr, this Board is going to resolve this case on the basis of the contention made by the Organization that the Claimant was prejudged. The Assistant Terminal supsrrintendant testified that he told the Claimant that her teas Claimant, could accept the demerits and Waive the formal investigation since
 PL8 pro. 2472 Case/Award No. 95 PMJC Three "bscausa of the·-offens&, one ua,y or another there would be diseipline involved." .
 the Organisation contends that this statement aonetitutea prejudgment. The Carrier argues that as the Assistant Terminal &uperintendant spas merely the accusing officer and not the trier of fact, that no prejodgment existed.
 We disagree with the Carrier. Holding a full iavestigation on the property at Vhich all evidences end !acts are to be submitted and then restricting the arbitration function to an appellate review is uniqcxe to the railroad industry. Under tease eircumstances it is extremely critical that the formal investigation be as "clean As a hound's tooth." Thus, even though the Asaistant Terminal fgerintandant was 'only, the accusing officer", his conveying of an impression, or be it possibly a facto that discigline would ensue from the formal investigation, irrespective of what evidence was developed, -sufficiently taints that investigation in this Board's view, as to require that the discipline be overturned.


!l rt , ,
 L.W. FArtridgt. 00r46nization weaaber D. E. Torrey& Carrie Member

April 150 1983
 San rranciscor CA