HAVE YOU RECEIVED PROPER NOTICE?

   There are three phases to a hearing in the eyes of the carrier: the notice, the investigation, and the discipline. If the carrier can be assured that there will be no cause for complaint in the notice and the hearing, the carrier can then proceed to the discipline with impunity. A question similar to "Were you properly notified?" has been included in the list of essential questions to be asked of each accused person, so that the carrier can foreclose any future protest on this point.

   The defendant must be forewarned of this question so that he may parry it by replying, "I received this letter to attend the investigation" or "I do not understand the technical requirements of proper notice."

   However, such an extremely important question can be met and overpowered by the following objection by the representative:

   Were you properly notified? is a leading question calling for affirmative conclusion which amounts to a waiver on the part of the accused of any irregularity in the substance and form of the notice.

   If the notice is faulty, it is propitious to enter such protest in the record at this point, as in the following protest because of indefinite notice:

   Mr. K. has consulted with me as his representative, and I have ^~^ examined the notice to see what charges have been placed against Mr. K.

   The notice reads in part "for investigation in connection with your alleged violation of Transportation Rules 700 and 701, by your actions while on duty as Yardmaster, and while on Company property in Taylor Street, Yardmasters' office on Tuesday and Wednesday, April 5th and 6th, 1955."

   Rules 700 and 701 are familiar to us. The time, April 5th and 6th, covers 48 hours, and is limited by the phrase "while on duty as Yardmaster." I have examined the work register with care, and have found that Mr. K. was on duty during this 48-hour period from midnight to 7 a.m. on April 5th, and from 11 p.m. to midnight April 6th.

   The notice contains no information enabling us to ascertain what incident is subject to investigation. If an approximate time during this 48-hour period were specified, this would help. If the act or occurrence were mentioned, this would help. If the persons involved were enumerated, this too would help.

   We are asked to stand investigation on a notice that:

   1. Does not specify which hour or hours of the 48-hour period is subject to review.

   2. States Mr. K. was "on duty as Yardmaster" -- this being questionable to us.

   3. Makes not the feeblest attempt to state the act under complaint.

   4. Mentions no person to whom Mr. K. was discourteous, so that he can identify the incident.

   This notice in no single aspect approaches the minimum standard of notice, and in fact is no notice at all, since we can fashion no defense based upon the information contained in the notice.

   Proper notice is the first requirement of due process of law, and since we have not been honored with the fundamental requirement of a fair hearing, the ensuing hearing, if it is held, is void and a nullity.