(Advance copy. The usual printed. copies will be sent later.)

-'®rm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJt1ST2fFPIT BOARD Award No. 6408

SECOND DIVIBICN Docket No. 6251

2-SOU-MA-'72

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.

( System Federation No. 21, Railway Employes'

( Department, A . F . of L . - C . I . 0 .

Parties to Dis2ute: ( -.(Machinists)

( Southern Railway Ccmpany

Dispute : Claim of Emplojyes

1. That under the current Agreement Machinists D. A . Duggan, Chattanooga, Tennessee, was unjustly held out of service beginning January 28, 1971, and ending at the close of work February 6, 1971.

2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to reimburse the aforesaid employe in amount of seven (7) days pay at the straight time rate and in amount of six (6) days pay at the time and. one-half time rate. The latter claim being for overtime lost during the period.

indihas

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, 1A--14.

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

Parties to said_dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Claimant was suspended for seven working days for allegedly knocking off early, contrary to ins-tr act ions .

Carrier presenter: substantial evidence at the investigation supporting its position that C1.:~1mant had knocked off apprcxLmately 12 minutes early, contrary to a recently pasted Plzlletin. Claimant's position was that he did not knock off early, the validity of the B;i11Ptin is crallenaed, an'. that he was discriminated a~.~ax:z.:t becaase of his activities as a Safety Cc-mitteeman.

7":e Ru_Iletin in question had been posted prior to the alleged infraction, was modified pursuant to requests initiated _by the Grga.nization and was repo_s_ ted ^fter the incident in question. It was not changed. in essential substance. Clt^iraant___ .: the hearing agreed that he was aware of the contents of. the original Bulletin.
Form 1 .. . : A;;ard No. 6408
Page 2 Docket No. 6251 j

2-SUU-MA-' 72

The record of the investigation contains conflicting testimoiry relating to whf--n Claimant left his work; if also reveals t°stinony by Claimant a.ud his witnesses alleging animus and annoyance by C aimants sut ervizor due to Claimants activity as a Safety Committeeman. This latter testimony is denied. by Carrier's witnesses.

As this Division said in Award 4981:

"Carrier is entitled to rely on the observations of .its super-..... visory employees ....It is not this Board's fuY.ction to resolve conflicts in testimony ani we will nc.t disturb discipline case findings that are supported by credible, though controverted., evidence."

The principle that we may not sutstitute our judo-m°nt for that of the Carrier when there is conflicting testimony has been establiAed for many years.
Since the record contains adequate evidence to sustain the Carrier's action and'
the punishment was not excessive, the claim must,be denied.

A 14 A R h ' _

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS'-r?~TIM BOARD ' _ -

By Order of Second Division

Attest e5. 6?. ~'

Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of November, 1972.

C