PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. TO DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western TranSDOrtatiCn Comrany.





FINDINGS: This Board, upon the whole record -nd all the evidence, finds and holds that the employes and the Carrier involved, =re respectively employes and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein.

 The claimant was sscigned as a boom truck operator at Carrier's Short Line Yard in Des Moines, Iowa, with assigned hours 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. On September 7, 1982, clsimnnt did not report to work until 8:15 A.M., or 45 minutes late. He told the Hoadmsster that he had overslept. On September 7, 1992, claimant was notified to anre?r for formal investigation scheduled for 1:00 ... P.M., September 13, 1982, en the chsrge:

The investigation was c®nducted as scheduled, with the claimant vresent and representFd by the General Chairman of the Organization. At the investigation claimant stated that he had been nrcoerly notified and, was reedy to proceee. In the investiaPtion there was substa-'itial evidence, including claimant's statement, that claimant was 45 minutes late on September 7, 1982, because of oversleeping. The Roadmaster also testified that he was aware of claimant reporting 45 minutes late. Following the investigation, claimant was notified of assessment of discipline of 15 days actual sus7nension, the discipline notice reading the same Ps the le-ter of charge.

 In the aDbeal on the property and in its submission, the Organization differentiates between being 45 minutes late and being

p'"sent from work without proper authority and contends th^t there was no proof of the charge of "absenting yourself from work without Droner author'.ty..." It roes on to contend that claimant was chpraed with one offense, being absent from work without Droner authority, and disciplined for reporting- late for work. It contends that the charge was not precise, as required by Rule 19(a) of the applicable Axreement.

 It has been held that the notice of chprxe must be tested by what is .stated therein. See Third Division Award No. 21419 and others cited therein, and Second Division Awards Nos. 3809 and 6612.

 It is also well settled that if exceptions _are to be taken to a notice of charge, or the manner in which an investigation is conducted, such exceptions must be taken prior to or during the course of the investigation; otherwise, they are d=emed waived. We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the investigation and do not find that timely exception was taken to the charze against the clpimant. Exception on aD^eal came too late.

 As timely exceztion was not taken to the letter of charffe, the claim herein will be dismissed.

                        A W A R D


          Claim dismissed.


                    Chpir^an, Neutral Member


/,/Carrier Member - Labor Member

 ,: Date:' 17 ~~