The Organization takes the position the Claimant was improperly removed from service pending the investigation. It further argues the Carrier's procedures were the reason for the mistake in orders as evidenced by charges made shortly after this incident. Finally, after discovering the error, Claimant operated the train in a safe manner.

As to the claim on its merits, it is not disputed the crew operated its train without proper orders. Rule 184 reads:

1. Obtain a legible copy of a train bulletin with a release form

at on duty locations.

2. Ascertain. (with each other, if feasible) that the information

common to both documents correspond, and

3. Confirm their understanding of the requirements (with each

other, if feasible).

Other crew members must read and understand the requirements of the train bulletin.

If their release form is not available when reported for duty, the conductor or engineer must promptly contact the train dispatcher.

If the crew had thoroughly read the orders it would have found the wrong date. The fact that the train was operated properly after the error was found is not mitigating.

As to pulling the Claimant out of service pending the investigation, the Organization's position is well taken. The Organization has made this argument from the onset of this case. The Carrier has yet to respond to the Organization's position. Regardless, there was no reason to pull the Claimant out of service pending the investigation. The record is void of evidence that Claimant had committed an offense serious enough to remove him from service prematurely. Nor is there evidence Claimant was a danger to himself or fellow employees.

Claimant violated the rules and the discipline will remain on his record. However, Carrier improperly removed the Claimant from service pending the investigation.. Accordingly, the Claimant is to be paid for all time lost from January 22, 1993 until February 22, 1993, the date the discipline was assessed.

ff.3 N~ ~ 5959

-u Q NO .