i
 'orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6397
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6209
 2-L&N-MA-' 72 I


( 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, a temporarily upgraded machinist apprentice, was suspended front service on September 19, 1970, pending investigation and subsequently discharged on October 26, 1970. He had been charged with being under the influence of in-
 toxicants and falling asleep during the early morning hours .of September 19, 1970.,.
 while he eras supposed to be performing his assigned duties.

 In our recent Award 6196 (Quinn) we summarized the criteria we apply when reviewing the record before us in matters involving disciplining of employees who are covered by Controlling Agreements requiring a determination that action taken was just. In it we stated:
Form 1 Award No. 6397
 Page 2 Docket No. 6209
 2-L&N MA-'72
 arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory manner, amounting to abuse
 of discretion. A carrier's disciplinary decision is unreasonable,
 arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory when the Carrier does not
 apply and enforce the rules with reasonable uniformity for all
 employes; when rule violation by an accused employe is not established
reasonably related to the seriousness of the proven offense. In
 judging the above, mindful that the Carrier has the burden of proving
 its charge and'of showing its conduct and decision were not unreasonable,
 the Board will not go beyond the record developed at the Carrier's
 investigation."
 With these standards before us, we examined the record herein. We are not
 satisfied that the main and most significant charge against the claimant was supported
 by-substantial evidence.
 The foreman who came into close proximity with the claimant on two occassions
 within the first hour after his arrival at work did not find him in a disabling condi
 tion due to having admittedly inbibed in a glass of beer prior to reporting for work.
 He permitted claimant to cammence working. Shortly thereafter, he personally treated
 claimant for a job incurred injury to one of his fingers. Again, he found nothing
 untoward in claimant's condition and sent him back to work. More than an hour later,
 he and another supervisor allegedly detected strong evidence of alcohol on claimant's
 breath. "ile we recognize that it is most difficult to establish with unchallengg
 able certainty the condition which we have regT_·larly held to be a punishable offense,
 we cannot find that this record meets the reasonable requirements we have laid down
 for dealing with these matters. moo

 Furthermore, the hearing officer and Carrier officials to whom Petitioner
 appealed completely disregarded the mitigating circumstances for claimant's conduct
 following his suffering an injury to his hand. It vas perfectly feasible that
 claimant felt ill and nauseated frcm the pain incurred. He showed poor judgement
 in not returning to the office and requesting to be relieved from duty and instead
 sat down and dozed off. We find that in weighing all of the circumstances, a dis
 charge was an excessive penalty and the Carrier should have heeded Petitioner's
 plea for a lesser punishment.
 A W A R D
 a) That part of claim marked (a) in submission is sustained.






Attest:


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October, 1972.