In conclusion, carrier reiterates that Carman Helper Bachus was guilty of the serious charges against him and in view of the nature of the offense, and his prior record, his dismissal was fully justified and should not be disturbed. In this connection, attention is invited to the following excerpts from previous awards of this Division:

"* * * This Board is loathe to interfere in cases of discipline if there is any reasonable ground on which it can be justified." (Second Division Award 1109.)

"* * * 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." (Second Division Award 1323.)

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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The claimant complains that he was unjustly dismissed from the service and he is seeking reinstatement with seniority rights unimpaired and with compensation for time lost. He was charged with the responsibility of not properly performing his duties, causing delay to Cain Creek Extra 410, March 14, 1957. There is ample evidence in the record that the claimant delayed the train by not properly performing his duties. In addition to the testimony of disinterested witnesses, the claimant himself admits that after the train was made up he did not inspect it until after Inspector Miller had called his attention to the fact that the doors were not properly latched. We find on Page 16 of Exhibit B,

"Q. This Cain Creek was made up at 8:00 P.M. Did you go over the train after it was made up.

A. Yes sir.

Q. Was this before or after Mr. Miller had called your attention to the doors that were not properly latched.

A. It was after."

The claimant's duty was to wind doors after the train was made up.

Was the penalty of dismissal justified? We think the language contained in Award 1692 of this Division is persuasive.

"The question then remains, was the penalty imposed excessive'? This and other Divisions of the Board have often said that they would not substitute their judgment for that of the carrier unless its action in that respect can be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or unjust."

The claim must be denied.

AWARD