Farm 1 NA.IIOTAh RAILROAD ADJUSTi'-7~_7T BOARD An.rard TTo. 7363
 SECO'~`r) LIQUO.T Docket No. 7271
 2-Nd-,W-CiM-'77



Parties to Dispute: (Carmen)

Dis-;Dute: Claim of






















F i nc~_s. Y~ ~,. 4 .

 h<:. Second Division o'1' the Ad.j'U.: i:r)Eant Board, upon. the whola record and all. u.tle ev'v_czence, ff.zxd.s -tll:Nc.:

 Tiat' carrier or carriers .:,.':1,d the W 1i'O_ryre or employ-as involved 1.I1 this d15?J1Zli:: are respectively G'L?Tr1C:C' and saploye within the meaning of the R;J.1.~ ~ cJ,'`° Labor a1..^t, a.:, approved .!one r._L; 1934.

 This Division of the r.'u;jil: i,mE.t^iG _'Gurd has jurisdiction over the dispute :1_ I"~ V';~ ~>SI a d. h f: Y' C ..11.
Form I Award No. 7363
 Page 2 Docket No. 7271
 2-N&W-CM- 7'7
The Claimant, Per. Alfred Dqnicls, Jr., eras employed at the Car:cieY°ls PoX~tlock Yard in i'Torfo1~.·-~, Virginia. Cla:i:maY:t was cited for formal investigation to determine his r::spons:i.bilii.;y, -.f an;;', in connection with theft of merchandise from freight car PC363686 arriving at Portlock Yard ,Tlzne 22, 1974. The far:;::.~.1 investigation 'eras field on July 25, 1974. B;r letter dated September y, ly(4; the Claimant was dismissed from the service of the Carxier.

 The Organization contends that the charge against the Claimant was not in aCCO~.°daY1Cc. wit!: Rule 37 Of the ,~':!,r f~'(·'rBE.-'nt . lae disagree. The notice to appear for the formal investigation contained all the necessary elements of a precise charge.

 The Organization contends that a "prompt" investigation was not held as
 xegui.reci. by 1;x.;1.; 3yWe disagree, Rule 37 dnes not set .forth specific
 time limits, but _at},w rc<ruires that the hearing he "pro mot". The theft
 allegedly O:'C1,L'"t'P.d on JUIW: G%', 1974. '!'he Carrier's first hnowledge of the
 ~:,l.~.E::>E.'d v.V Cil't 's?::'... on. cT'':i`'. 2`( , 1974 . The citation far the formal investiga
 tion 4:c.., dated c.ul;j O, 1974, ._u`_'! the hearing date initially set fad' cTlllv
 16, 1974. Due to tz-ro re:~;;ov:ar~le pc:cronei ezts requested b- the Organization,
 the tearing -as held o1 ..i;25. _.jH. We find that the hearing held ail
 july 25, 1974, was reasonably pz'a;;pt under the circumstances, which required.
 investigation time as a~; preparation time.

 We have reviewed the record and find that the investiERtion was conducted in a _'.a7.2' manner. The record reveals that the Claimant was very ably z·en~resels'ted by the Local Chairman, clans; u:i_th the Assistant Local Chairman, and the Claimant's Committeeman. The C.2_a1;1'u.n,t was allowed t0 Call a11. witnesses he des:i 'e. , a Y_cA to present his c«sa as he and his
 representatives sw;', fit. He and t_ :.s representatives Trez'e given full opportunity to crass e_:axuirE: all. wiu;aessas.

 There is substantial evidence in the record berate the Board to ;support the Carrier's f:i_°Id.in;;s ._r; the instant case. The totality of the testimony of Can`; Loader S?at:a..C'r, Gang Leader Thomas, Captain of Police Benton, Sergeant 1~r;Tar:i<,~ and r:rr, _,.. ~T;. 7T11:1_ support the Carrier's finding that the Claimant was issued w:akie talkie radio to use during his tour of My
 on ,S
end of his tour. Further, the testimony of the, above Y7.ant_.i'I. :iitY1E.-'C>SE':p
support a finding that the Claimant was one o~.' the Carmen assigned to
 inspect 1 ra'!'_ Y ho. .l and freight C"c:T' 1v3O jtU8C? Un c,llne 22, 1974; that tile
 seal On the right side of freight car _FC363636 was missing when the car was
 delivered to the ?el.tLi.re Interchange on dune ? 3, 1974; and 'chat. an Tune 2 ;',
 1977, the consignee of the Might car in question, Colonial Stores, found
 the radio inside the freight car a:rd also discovered that certain merchandise
 was missing from the car. 1 hE: Claimant dented taking any merchandise and
 stated he turned the radio in before Z^TOL'..II:g 'GY.'c.:l_Il `v4. l;a?:i;'i?a.n JC1CU^s
 testified that the O.ia 1.?::'.`.'',Yl't did not have a ,r`:,.:,1_'! O when working train 84,
 that he was with Claimant all might, and that the Claimant did not enter the
 Form Z Award Pro. 7363
 Page 3 Docket No. 7271
 2-rr~:T~-C1~2-' 77

 box car in ~cPUesti_on. Caman Ing.rc,:n testified that he rode tiom,e with the
 C7..ain,snt and tl-)at there was no mE;ceTiand-JI_se in. the Claimant's car. `i'1ie scope.
 of review of this Board j.;, to assess T,;het}a.er or n~:A the Carrier h;--s ~mct its
 burden of i-)roof of ~x'~se;.av~n,; isuibsvantia1 evidence of robatJve value wlich
 S'Up_~Oxt:S :1t:, e.'.ci;:10n. Tilw` si.:Op° of vTi7~; DOa:C'il.t;> review does, ':20t include
 w
 resolving con.i.l9 cts in testzmorly or evidence. The fi.n.d..:y o:f' the Carrier
 that the Clv.-I.-_ant was for the theft of the merchandise in
 question, since 1t 1C> o:il:yl,'AO'!"tEd by evidence of reco)2d, must
 sta,nd.

 The th.o_~t; of merchandise is a, mot sericus znat;ter, and we cannot/ find that the di ;sc:ip7.ine of dismissal was a.rba_vra,~,y, ci-p. cious or excessive. We s1:m21 ;3_ez:yr ttvs C;latl.

                      W A P -D


    Claim denied.


                            Pr~'i.'TO~:I~L RAITrRO,~D ADJUCT'`,ZE''.Tn B0I`~1~D is f Or rdGr of C.-'.'CO;ad I)'~"v 1.S:iOn


At, .eS''G: rXCCali;-,_Z'C tC,''.l:'E'i,~Y'','
 Tra i~ mot=rl 'ttv'i l..oad r:dj izsvment Board

      _ _ _ w__

      ! ._.~..


                  r

              .4 ,q \.

T3 i . .t,~;a'' K
 .. _-~ a r~ , ·-i e ._ v~, r ,: ~, ; . - _ ,
    ~..~ser ax ~.._ .. °~Lu .~,_ ~. ~ ..r:~ . L .z' i'-i~, ,. i S i,. .,t


Dated at Chica~;o, I1liuois, this 30th dr.tr,r of September, 1977.