.a. o i





Form 1 , NATIONAL RAILROAD AD,T:::~TMENT BOARD Awarl No. 6372
 SECO;ID DW'ISZON Docket No. 6218
 2-L&N-MA-' 72



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 j1xrisd'ction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant was in service for a little oiler one ?nd one half years. On the night in question he was assigned as a machinist helper to assist a machinist in making repairs to a diesel locomotive. His shift was from x1 P.M. to 7 A.M. A t 1:15 A.M. the Department Foreman found claimant seated in the cab of the locomotive. The Department Foreman insists that he was asleep. Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Agreement, claimant was -ictified in writing that he was charged with being asleep, that a hearing wculd be held and `-'fiat he should be present with witnesses and a representative if he so desired..

 At the hearing, the Department Foreman testified that as he passed the locomotive his attention was attracted to claimant because his head was down and chin resting on his chest. In great detail, the Department Foreman testified that he was in a position close enough to see that claimantts eyes were closed. The Foreman .watched him for three to four miniitps He then printed on a card, "I am asleep" and placed the card in the claimant's lap. In about fifteen to twenty seconds,
 clain-ont raised his head. The Foreman asked what the card said. Claimant read the, iI
 Form 1 Award No. 63t,
 Page 2 Docket No. 6213
 2h&N-MA-' 72

 card and said he was not asleep. When asked where the machinist was he said that the machinist was gone about thirty minutes. Claimant was asked the time, looked at his watch and answered, "1:15."

 The Department Foreman immediately called claimant's foreman and told him that he found claimant asleep. It was learned that the machinist had injured his finger about 11:45 P.M., and left to have it treated by the foreman but had not returned to the locomotive. Claimant emphatically denied that he was asleep. He testified that he did not see the Department Foreman watching him because he was wearing dark glasses and they obstructed his side vision. He claimed also that he protested that he was not asleep as soon as the card was put into his lap. Claimant admitted that he had previously been reprimanded for being asleep on the job on one occasion but no formal record was placed in his file.

 This is a case of one man's word against another. The Department foreman's statement was detailed and specific. The charge was not an afterthought but was told i;mnediately to claimant's foreman when it happened. The report was written up at the time and given to the division manager at the end of the shift. Claimant was in error when he stated that the machinist was gone thirty minutes because it was developed at the hearing that one and one half hours had passed during which claimant did nothing but sit in the cab. Vigorous questinning by claimant's representative confirmed every detail of the Department Foreman's statement of the events.

 Prior Awards of this Division have made it clear that it is not the funct! of this Board to substitute its judgement where there is conflicting testimony so lo._ti as there is substantial evidence to support the result of the hearing.. If we were to decide every case in favor of a claimant where it wae-one man's word against another, all that would be required would be a denial of the charge. The hearing in this.case was a fair one and every opportunity was given to develop the facts. Claimant simply could not justify doing nothing for one and one half hours except perhaps to doze off in the cab. The charge was solely that he was sleeping and on this one question the combination of events do not leave room for this Board to determine that the carrier's decision was arbitrary or capricious.

 Prior awards have also made clear that sleeping on the job is an offense which leads to dismissal. This was referred to by claimant's representative during the hearing. Prior Awards have established the rule that this . Board will not overrule the carrier in deciding the degree of discipline to be imposed unless.the discipline is obviously arbitrary and in bad faith. In this case there was a prior reprimand for sleeping on the job. A function of. this Board is to develop a pattern for guidance on the property. This is accomplished by being consistent except where the facts require a different result. This case is not such an exception.

 Awards of the Second Division referred to are: No. 1323, 2996, 3430, 4629, 4981, 6196, 6240, and 6281.
Form 1 Award No. 6372
 Page 3 Docket No. 6218
 2- L&N-MA-· 72
 A W,R-D


                                                            By Order of Second Division i


Attest:~_
          ~^'''' . '


                                                      Executive Secretary i Dated at Chicago, IXIinois, this 28th day of Septairber, 1972.


I t