Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSM'IENT BOARD Award No. 7T+75
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7302
 2-SLSF-CM-'78



Panties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

Di.srrute: Clair of Emu loyes:






Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier ox carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute axe 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 Clarence Rice, employed at Memphis, Tenn. as a Caiman Apprentice . on July 31, 7_97T+, was dismissed from Carrier's service on June 18, 2.975 for failure to complete written appxe .ti ce training lessons furnished by the Railway Education Bureau, following an investi.r-a:Lion on June 11+, 1975. Such failure was deemed by the Carrier to constitute negligence or indifference to duty, arid thus rendered Claimant/ 1-able to dismissal under corzpany regulations.
 Form 1 Award No. 7T+75
 Page 2 Docket No. 7302
 2-ShSF-CM-' 78

 The record indicates that Claimant was advised by the Chief Mechanical Officer (Equipment) on March 17, 1975 that he was delinquent in completing four (4) lessons, and that he would be subject to discipline and/or removal from service if more than four lessons delinquent. Claimant acknowledged receipt of this letter on ~larch 21.

 The Claimant's foreman posted a notice on April 25, 1975 addressed to all taxmen apprentices, calling their attention to the March 17 letter referred to above and reaff:i_nniziL; the possibility of discipline if they were more than four. lessons delinquent. On that same date, April 25, Claimant's foreman wrote to Claimant that he was six lessons in arrears in his apprentice training program and that he was to report on his next rest day to the fore:aa:n's office and work on his lessons in the foreman's presence. On that same date (April 25), however, the foreman sent another letter to Claimant, stating that "the reason you rave not received 4 apprentice lessons they failed to handle your change of address. You properly filled out required forms. Please disregard my letter to you dated iE-25-75 concerning your delinquent status, your 4 lessons will be mailed to me and I will see you receive

them promptly."


On May 29, Claimant was directed to appear at a hearing on June 1T+ on the grounds that he z-ras 8 lessons delinquent.

 At the hearing, Claimant's foreman stated that he had called the Railway Education Bureau on May 30, and eras informed that Claimant was delinquent in completing 20 lessors, two of which had been mailed him on Nay 10. Claimant', also at the hearing, asserted that he had turned in. lessons about three days before the May 29 letter directing him to appear at a hearing regarding his delinquency and that he brought in the letter to the foreman and was told "ever,,thing was all right."

 Claimant was dismissed from service effective June 18, 1975 "in connection with your failure to properly complete the Railway Educational Bureau Apprentice Correspondence courses."

 Following Claimant's dismissal on June 18, Carrier offered to reinstate him without pay on July 14, 1975, which offer he rejected. On October 28, 1976, reinstatement eras again offered on a leniency basis with seniority and all the other rights unimpaired but without pay for tune lost, and again declined.

 During the hearing, Claimant stated that he had not been receiving the lessons because of a change of address. At the same time, he acknowledged that he was required to complete tz~ro lessons a month. Claimant had been advised, by letter dated March 17, that he was being sent two lessons a month; that he .,-as required to keep current in completing such lessons; that keeping "current" required being no more than 1+ lessons delinquent; and that he would be subject to discipline if more than four lessons delinquent.
 Form 1 Award No. 7+75
 Page 3 Docket No. 7302
 2-SLSF-CM-' 78
Yet not until he received a letter from his foreman on April 25, advising him that he was six lessons delinquent, did he undertake to ascertain why he was not receiving any lessons. Claimant stated at the hearing that he had not received. any lessons fox about 1k months.

 Claimant's personal ;record, introduced by the Carrier at the hearing without objection, refers to two letters written by Claimant's foreman early in 1975 concerning his delinquency in completing his lessons. These letters are dated prior to the time charges were filed leading to the formal hearing.

 The hearing transcript also indicates that Claimant had been talked to previously about the importance of sending in his completed lessons promptly.

 Claimant (and Petitioner) assert that Claimant could not complete his lessons on time because he did not receive them. In support, reference is
 made to the fore~m^n' s -letter of April 25, 1975, which acknowledged that
 Claimant had executed the proper change of address fo a~ s but also that "they failed to handle -vour char~;e of address." Petitioner concludes, therefore, that "Apparently the rails~:a.y Educational Bureau was at fault by virtue of not sending these lessons properly and timely. "

 Carrier states, however, that the Railuay Educational Bureau had used and dial in fact use Clai_:^_ant's correct address. Carrier cites some lessons failed by Claimant in jalluary 1975, vrhich were returned to him, were reworked and returned by him to tine Bureau, and credited to him in 11arch. This, Carrier asserts, indicates the Bureau' s use of the correct address.

 Both sides thus make statements regarding Claimant's receipt of the lessons which are in conflict. The :record provides no basis to permit the Board to resolve those conflicting contentions.

 We are thus left with the critical issue as to whether Carrier's action in dismissing Claimant from service for delinquency in completing his written apprentice training lessons was arbitrary or capricious. The evidence is clear, and acknowledged by Petitioner, that Claimant eras delinquent, and that he had previously been admonished and advised of potential discipline if he failed to submit his co7:acleted lessons on time. Claimant iv-as aware of the fact that he was scheduled to receive two lessons a month to be worked on. and he so acknowledged at the hearing. He stated that he had not received any lessons for 1+ months, but made no effort to find out why he was not receiving them.

 Although we find that the evidence concerning Claimant's receipt of the lessons is in dispute, the evidence that Claimant was delinquent in his lessons is sufficient and credible and supports the charges as made. Ode cannot, therefore, in accordance with long-estab:Li.shed principles of this Board, substitute our judgment for that of the Carrier. Awards upon this point are too nm::erous to mention. We have no choice but to deny the claim.
 Form 1 A-ward No. 71+75
 Page 4 Docket No. 7302
 2-SZSF-CM-'78




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 .-.--°Rc.f>emarie Brasc'z - tscwidni.s-crative Assistant

 Dated (t Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of febrLzary, 1978.