In Fourth Division Award No. 332, the Board, with the assistance of Referee Henry J. Tilford, denied claim for reinstatement of the claimant who had been discharged and said:

"In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the Carrier's action in dismissing an employe will not be interfered with by the Board unless in so doing the Carrier acted arbitrarily or capriciously, provided always the employe has been accorded such a hearing or trial as the rules provide for."

In a claim for reinstatement with full seniority and other service rights and with compensation for all time lost submitted to your Board by the same organization now a party to the present dispute, in behalf of Carman T. R. Flowers, Docket No. 1256, your Board, with the assistance of Referee J. Glen Donaldson, in Award No. 1323 denied the claim in its entirety, holding as follows:

"There is undoubtedly room here for diferences of opinion whether in view of claimant's past record and the circumstances of this case that outright dismissal from service was dictated. Be that as it may, it has become axiomatic that it is not the function of the National Railroad Adjustment Board to substitute its judgment for that of the carrier's in disciplinary matters, unless the carrier's action be so arbitrary, capricious or fraught with bad faith as to amount to an abuse of discretion. Such a case for intervention is not presently before us. The record is adequate to support the penalty assessed."

Again in Award No. 1121, your Board, with the assistance of Referee Sidney St. F. Thaxter, denied claim for reinstatement of Carman Guy Hess and held as follows

"The action of the carrier in imposing the discipline it did in this case was not only not unreasonable but was fully justified."

In Third Division Award No. 2297, the Board, with the assistance of Referee Herbert B. Rudolph, denied the claim for reinstatement and held as follows:

"It is not the function of this Division to weigh the evidence in disputes of this nature. It has been repeatedly held by this Division that if there is any substantial evidence to support the charges, the findings based on this evidence will not be disturbed; if the Carrier has not acted arbitrarily, without just cause, or in bad faith, its action will not be set aside. Nor is the function of this Division to substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier in the matter of discipline. Under the facts presented we cannot say that the Carrier acted arbitrarily, without just cause, or in bad faith."

Based upon the facts contained herein, this claim should be denied as being wholly without merit, without basis in fact and without support under the rules of the efective agreement.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Claimant was charged with having gone off the carrier's premises without permission. Admittedly such conduct, while on duty, is an infraction

of the rules of the parties' agreement unless a valid excuse is apparent. The evidence produced at the hearing is sufficient to sustain the findings that claimant was guilty of the charges made against him.

Claimant had served carrier as an employe for almost twenty-one years. The records indicate that his services were satisfactory during all of those years. In view thereof we think the discipline imposed was unreasonable and excessive.

We find that a reasonable imposition of discipline under the facts, as disclosed by the record, requires that claimant be reinstated with all seniority rights unimpaired but denied compensation for all time which he has lost by reason of this proceeding.

AWARD