Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6362
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6155
 2-MP-MA-t72
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Machinists)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




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.

Claimant with the aid of a machinist's helper performed the assigned work. Two other machinists, in turn, finalized and inspected the work. The engine was returned to the shop when it failed to operate properly. Inspection determined that the failure occurred in the part of the engine which had been repaired..

 The hearing was first scheduled. on 3 days notice but was held 10 days after notice when the Local Chairman requested additional time. The two machinists were given 15 days deferred suspension, the claimant was given 30 days actual

Form 1 Award No. .665

Page 2 Docket No. 6
 . 2 _MP-MA- ' 72

 suspension and the helper '(who eras taken off the work before its completion) was not penalized. The Organization contends that the notice did not state the charge precisely, that not enough time was given to prepare adequately for the hearing, that a material witness who was on vacation was not given an opportunity to testify and that the carrier did not prove that claimant was at fault.

 Rule 32 of the Agreement follows the usual Rule for reasonable notice to the employe of the precise charge and the opportunity to produce witnesses and to be represented.. It is usually required that the hearing be held promptly.
 Three days notice may have been too short but this was corrected when the time
 was extended at the request of the Local Chairman. The charge was definite and
 clearly referred to the work performed which is in question. When it was read to
 claimant at the hearing no further objection was raised and the claimant stated
 that he was ready to proceed, Tr. p.15. The claimant answered that he had a full
 opportunity to produce evidence, Tr. p.22, although he then stated that the in
 vestigation was not conducted fairly and impartially, Tr. p.22, 23. This un
 certainty does not help the claimant.
 The questions asked by the claimant's representative and the testimony offer
 ed by both parties showed that they were familiar with the subject matter. The work
 performed and the damage which occurred later were discussed by the witnesses for both
 sides in great detail. Additional witnesses for either side could hardly have added
 more information or knowledge than was presented. It is basic to the presentation
 of proof that it is not the quantity but the quality of the evidence which must be
 considered. If the machinist on vacation had unusual or otherwise unobtainable
 evidence to offer, that should have been made known before the hearing started.
 First Division Award 19699 states the conclusion to be followed by reasonable Joe
 people, in substance, that the claimant could not reasonably doubt what he was .
 charged with having done wrong.
 There is considerable controversy over the question of fault. Organization
 representatives have argued the question at great length~and vehemently, demonstrat
 ing complete familiarity with the work in question, including discussion at this
 level. Nevertheless, fundamental policy is so well established that it cannot be
 ignored. When called upon to review decisions of administrative agencies, the
 Courts have consistently refused to upset the decisions if substantial evidence
 has been produced to support the result. Substantial evidence does not require that
 it'be by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. This Board
 has held this to be so in many cases, see Second Division Awards No. 6196, 3676, 440l,
 4407, 5020; and Third Division Award No. 15574.
 We do not believe that it would violate the policy sated herein if we dis
 agreed with the penalty imposed upon claimant as related to the discipline handed out
 to the two other machinists. If they were also parties to the wrongdoing, as decided
 by the Carrier, and if discipline is to be measured by degree, then the 30-day actual
 suspension is excessive. Claimant's penalty should be reduced to 30 days deferred
 suspension. He should be paid for lost time at the pro rata rate.
 A W A R D
Form 1 Award No. 6362
 page 3 Docket No. 61`,15
 2-MP-MA-'72
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLJSTiEar BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 Attest: ^ . ~t.~,
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of July, 1972.