Parties Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
 to and
 Dispute St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
 (Southern Pacific Lines)
 Statement
 of Claim: "Herewith appeal to your decision of Midwest Region General Manager
 R L. Batory, his letter of February 3, 1993 to expunge the discipline letter
 from the personal record of Engineer J. W. Ashcra8, reinstate him to the
 service from which withheld with full seniority and other rights
 unimpaired, and pay him for all time lost plus any and all expenses
 resulting fi-om the suspension, investigation, and dismissal.
 Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of the parties
 Agreement establishing this Board therefor.
 The Claimant, an Extra Board Engineer, while working on the
 10:30 hump engine assignment in Pine Bluff Yard on June 3, 1992 was
 involved in a hard coupling or joint when shoving to a joint on the main
 line, resulting in an injury to Engineer Massanelli.
 A report (CS 2611) of the incident was filed by the Claimant on
 June 3, 1992.
 Another such report (2611) was made by the Claimant on June 12,
 1992. He stated therein that he had sustained an injury to his left knee in
 the accident that he reported on June 3, 1992. ,
 The Claimant on August 11, 1992 was removed from service
 pending an investigation. He was notified to attend an investigation on
 August 14, 1992 on the charge:
 "your claim of injury while on duty and the timely and accurate reporting
 of said injury on or about June 12, 1992 that came to my attention on
 August 6, 1992."
 Following four (4) postponements by the BLE Local Chairman the
 investigation was held November 24, 1992.

      The Claimant was notified on December 4, 1992 that:


"he was dismissed from the service of the Company in connection with your dishonesty when you falsely claimed an injury while on duty on or about June 12, 1992."

 As this Board previously held in it5Award Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, egregious procedural errors, timely raised at the outset of the November 24, 1992 investigation, bars the Carrier from issuing any discipline whatsoever and this Board from addressing the merits of the disputed claims.

      BLE Agreement Article 71 reads:


" 1nv ',Qation shall be started ' hin 20 da;tgfp ll ncvinthe ,date
 of
 occurrence for which held, or fnllowing .,the date on which a re=n%i'hir
 officer of the ('.airier obtains knowledg . of such n=irr6nce
 Postponement may he made under the ovicionc of the ag==ents or by
 the Carrier or the employees or their representatives for good reason or by
 agreement." (emphasis added)

 The Board does not question the wisdom of the language agreed to by the parties in Article 71. They set flexible time limits within which an investigation shall start. The Article also provided for postponements far good reason
The Carrier stipulated that Cecil Copeland, Director of Crew Development and Performance, was the "responsible officer." Thus, the window of opportunity to start the investigation is measured as being between June 12, 1992, commensurate with the filing of the second Employee Accident Report (2611), and August 11, 1993, when the investigation notice was served by Mr. Copeland. Such period is far in excess of the 20 days provided in Article 71 absent any possible overriding persuasive rationale therefor.

 The Board concludes that it cannot address the merits and the claim for tune lost is sustained. The BLE Exhibit 13 "Apportionment of Claims Payment" reflects that the coverage in the claim payment settles was covered the period of time between August 1, 1990 through and including January 1992. This incident ocx~ured thereafter. Therefore, the monies involved in the claim payment cannot be used as an offset
 -3- Award No. 22

 Award: Claim sustained as per findings.

          Order. Carrier is to make this Award effective within thirty (30) days of date of issuance shown below.


D. E. Thompson, ployee Member Kell Sh tuner Member

is

Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman
 and Neutral Member

          Issued January 25, 1997.

    CARRIER'S DISSENT TO AWARD NO. 22 OF PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5345


This case involves a dispute presented on behalf of a Claimant engineer for lost time resulting from a suspension for not reporting an injury immediately,. The Board overturned the Carrier's discipline based on a procedural error. The Board concluded that the Division failed to charge the Claimant within twenty (20) days of the incident as required by Article 71 of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers' Agreement. As a result, the Claimant was awarded full back pay for his time out of service.


The Carrier submits that the Board in awarding the Claimant full back pay errantly failed to consider the 'Release of All Claims'. Said incident occurred on June 3, 1992, while the claim for same originated on January 5, 1993. The Claimant received a settlement for the incident on October 26, 1993 and at that same time signed the Release. The settlement and release account for incidents that occurred on July 30, 1990 and June 3, 1992. The language of the Release, expressed clearly and without ambiguity, reads as follows, in pertinent part:


      "In further consideration of the amount received, I release and discharge the Company from any and all liabilities, causes of action claims, actions or rights which I may have accumulated under any applicable collective bargaining agreement..."


Since the claim originated on January 5, 1993, it is evident that the incident in question was covered through the settlement that the Claimant received from the Carrier. However, the Board wrote:


      "that it cannot address the merits and the claim for time lost is sustained. The BLE Exhibit 13 "Apportionment of Claims Payment' reflects that the coverage in the claim payment settlement was covered the period of time between August 1, 9990 through and including January ?992".


Such statement is groundless because the Release clearly states that the settlement is for incidents which occurred on July 30, 1990 and June 3, 1992. Therefore, in light of the Release, it remains the Carrier's position that the Claimant waived his right to the foregoing claim and that the board erred in awarding him full back pay.


      For the foregoing reason, the Carrier respectfully dissents to this award.


                        FOR THE CARRIER:


                        Kelly P. ridan

                        Manager Labor Relations