Awards Hb. 9
 D'Oc$et' No. 9
 PARTIES: Brotherhood'of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO ::
 DISPUTEa:Chfcago and North Western Transportation Company





FINDINGS.::.

 The Board; upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds that the employes and the Carrier involved, are respectively employes and Carrier within the,meaning of the Railway Labor Act; asamended; and that the Board has jurisdiction over-the dispute herein.

 Prior to his dismissal, claimant was employed as a trackman, on-.Carrierfs Illinois Division. On October 26, 1982, C'arrier's Roadmaster·, Tames A. Tacke, was supervising the work of "a maintenance crew at DeKalb), Illinois Claimant, who was not working that day, approaehedthe maintenance crew and talked to the employes. The Carrier-contends that claimant picked up a stick, walked over-to the $oadmaster and told him (the-Eoa.dmaster) that he was going to kill him, shaking,the stick at him while he did so.

 On November 1, 1982, written notice was directed to claimant to report for-investigation at 3 00 P.M., Wednesday, November 3, 1982, on the charge:-

The Organization =ntends that the claimant- was handed the notice of charge on November 2, 1982.

                                                DQcgeV2 No. 9


                    "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

        concerning the alleged offense has reached the Assistant

        Division Manager--Ehgineering. Decision will be rendered

        withinrten (10) calendar days after completion of hearing.

        Prior to the hearing the employes will be notified in

        writing of the precise charge against him, with copy to

        the General Chairman, after which he will be allowed

        reasonable 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 eithe3r

        party."


At the investigation, which began at the time scheduled, claimant was represented by the r1ce Chairman of the Organization, Mr. K. L. Bashman. At the beginning, Mr. Bilshman ob'jected° that` claimant was not given two working days advanee:·notice of the investigation, a:i&'that the charge against claimant was not precise as to his alleged falsification of his application for employment. We cronsider that portion of the charge:

        "Your responsibility for falsification of your application for employment dated September 16, 1977..."


to be sufficiently precise to enable the claimant and his representative to prepare a defense, and met the requirement of Rule, 19(x) of the Agreement.

 As to the"two-working da s notice" issue, we do not consider that portion of Rule 19(x) reading:

        "Two workeing days will, under ordinary circumstances, be considered a reasonable time."


to tie mandatory. Further-, with an official's life being threatened, certainly does not came under the category of "ordinary circumstances.". Alsos the following colloquy transpired between therconducting officer; Mr. Taft, claimant's representative, and the olaimanti
 ' Sl3A qP-Y
                                                DgW6269-No: Page 3.


        "Mr. Taft:- Mr. Sizshman, at this time, being that your agreement does state two full working days, db you wish at this time to postpone-the investigation until he hashad two full days plus-. additional time to prepare forr the investigation?


        Mr. fshman:- Insofar as the way the'oharge is written, we still would'not have a precise charge.


        St. Traftr Your objection as to the charge will be noted in the investigation. Do .you wish to continue with the investigation, or do you request a postponement?


        Mr. Bushman:- I personally do not request`a postponement`.


        Mr. Coleman do you request a postponement at this time, until you have had two full working days?


        A: Well I will do whatever you say but, I guess not if

        you two wants to do it today, we will do it today.

        a a x


        Q. Do you-request a postponement? _


        A. I-o sir, not'if'my representative doesn't.


        Q. Mr. Coleman, are you now ready to procee&with this investigation.


        A. Yes sir.""


It is clear that-the claimant and his representative willingly elected'to proceed`, and thereby waived any technical or procedural contention concerning the two-working day advance notice issue.

 In the investigation substantial evidence was adduced; including claimant's own statement, that-claimant did threaten the= life of the Roadmaster; and also that he did; in fact; falsify his applic-tion for employment when he answered "No" to the question:

          "Have you ever been convicted of`a felony or-, misdemeanor?"


Many decisions have been issued, upholding the (%t.qs_al. 04,' employes for falsification of applications for employment, regardless
 . - yg,4- ~'a 4

                                                Award No. 9?

                                                Doo-ket ITo.9

                                                Pagewl~


ofx the time between the date of application and when the falsification is discovered. Either of the charges against the claimant justified his dismissal.

 The Organization complains that the officer who conducted the investigation in this case fid not issue the notice of discipline. We have been referred to no rule in the agreement providing who shall prefer charges, conduct investigations; orj issue decisions. In the hearing of this dispute; the representative of the Carrier stated. that on this property it. was not'-unusual for an officer other than the conducting officer to actually issue decisions in discipline cases. If there is no reference In-the agreement as to who shall make the decision regarding discipline _then this Board cannot-say that the agreement was violated. We are precluded from writing language into an agreement, or interpreting it any way other. than as written.

        The claim herein will be denied.


                      A W A & D:


        Claim denied:


                  ~iI ~/

                  Chairman, Neutral Membea ~~


rrier Memberr Labor Memb r

 DATE::. X31 ) 1 ~3