AWARD NO. , 7 9
CASE N0. 94

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and

Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.

STA TENEqT of Ci:

Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) a. The ten (10) days deferred suspension assessed Traces J.R. Tobin, April 12, 1979, was without just and sufficient cause. (System Files 90-076, and D-11-17-274)

b. The Carrier failed to render 'a decision within ten (10) calendar days after completion of the hearing and therefore defaulted under the provisions of Rule 19(a).

(2) The ten (l0) days deferred suspension assessed Traces

J.R. Tobin must be stricken from Claimant's personal records.

OPINION OF BOARD :
Upon due notice to Claimant, Carrier conducted an investigation on April 4, 1979 into charges reading as follows:

Your responsibility in connection with your failure to work overtime in an emergency on March 24, 1979, for which you are being charged with violation of Rule No. 7 of the General Regulation and Safety Rules of the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company. Effective

June 1, 1979. -.

That investigation was concluded on April 4, 1979 and twelve (12) days later,
on April 16, 1979, Carrier mailed to the Organization's General Chairman a
copy of the transcript of investigation and to Claimant and the General
Ch-irma~i copies of a Notice of Discipline dated April 12, 1979 finding Claimant
guilty as charged and assessing a ten days deferred suspension.
Under date of May 8, 1979 the General Chain filed the instant claim
asserting a default by Carrier under Rule 19(a) for untimely rendering the
decision and aendo r contending that Claimant was not guilty on the merits.
Our review persuades us of the soundness of the Organization's procedural
argument, and we express no opinion on the merits of this case.
Rule 19(a), which governs in this case, reads in pertinent part as
follows:
Rule 19 - Discipline

(a) Any employe who has been in service in excess of

sixty (60) calendar days will not be disciplined nor

dismissed without a fair and impartial hearing. He may,

however, be held out of service pending such hearing. At

the hearing, the employe may be assisted by an employe of

his choice or a duly accredited representative or repre

sentatives of the Brotherhood. The hearing will be held

within ten (10) calendar days of the alleged offense or

within ten (10) calendar days of the date information con

cerning the alleged offense has reached the Assistant

Division/Manager Engineering. Decision will be rendered

within ten (10) calendar days after completion of hearing.

Prior to the hearing the employe will be notified in

writing of the precise charge against him, with copy to

the General Chairman, after which he will be allowed rea

sonable time for the purpose of having witnesses and

representative of his choice present at the hearing. Two

working days will, under ordinary circumstances, be con-

. sidered reasonable time. The investigation will be post-
poned for good and sufficient reasons on request of
either party.
The record persuasively establishes that the Notice of Discipline was typed
on Thursday, April 12, 1979, wig the ten day limit. But the decision was
not mailed until T3onday, April 16, 1979, apparently because of mail backlog
in Carrier's office due to the Easter holidays. On those facts, the decision
was "rendered" for purposes of the ten day requirements of Rule 19(a) when it
was placed in the mail by Carrier. See Awards 3-12001 and 3-13219, The postage
meter date on the envelope in which Carrier mailed the decision is April 16,
1979. Clearly, this is more than ten days from the completion of the hearing
on April 4, 1979. We have on other occasions held that the time limits of Rule 19 acre meaningful provisions which must be strictly enforced. See PLB 1344, Awards 19, 23, S8, and 62. We shall sustain the claim due to Carrier's violation of Rule 19 (a) , without reaching the merits.

AZYARD

Claim sustained as indicated in Opinion.

;c~innlzi~_-

H:-.- Hai-per, Eicploy~` er

Date:

D. Crawford, r:.-ier