Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7+23
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7350
2-MKCSJA-CM-`77





Parties to Dispute: ( (C armen)



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 ox employes involved in this dispute axe respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

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



Numerous prior awards of this Board set forth our function in discipline cases. Our function in discipline cases is not to substitute our judgment for the Carrier's, nor to decide the matter in accord with what we might ox might not have done had it been ours to determine, but to pass upon the question whether, without weighing it, there is substantial evidence to sustain a finding of guilty. If that question is decided in the affirmative:, the penalty imposed for the violation is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of the Carrier. We are not warranted in disturbing Carrier's penalty unless we can say it clearly appears from the record that the Carrier's action with respect thereto was discriminatory, unjust, unreasonable, capricious or aribtrary, so as to constitute an abuse of that discretion.

A review of the testimony by Carrier's Assistant Trainmaster, Carrier's Yardmaster, and Caiman R. R. Neidermeyer, indicates that the 45-minute
F orm 1 Page 2

Award. No. 71+23
Docket No. 7350
2-MKCSJA-CM-`77

delay of Train No. 81 can be attributed to fact that Claimant had not okayed No. 6 rail until x+:55 A. M.

Claimant attempts to justify this delay by stating that he had to close the doors on three (3) boxcars with a "pull" jack or "coffin" jack. However, Carrier's Assistant Trairzmaster testified that the only tools he remembers Claimant carrying were "his light and packing iron."

The record before us indicates that substantial credible evidence has been presented to support Carrier's conclusion of Claimant's guilt.

Carrier's penalty was, therefore, not discriminatory, arbitrary, or capricious. Moreover, the penalty was not unreasonable, particularly in light of the fact that two (2) of the five (5) days of Claimant's suspension were his rest days, and thus Claimant suffered no monetary loss on those two (2) days. Consequently, we must deny the claim.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEIVT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

BY J~.~rI.,




Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of December, 1977.