Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD AD<TUSTT.TL;fT BOARD Award No. 7+92
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 71+8
 2-B&.M-FO-' 78



Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers
 _~.-

Dispute: Claim of Employes:



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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in rnis dispute are respectively carrier and eyploye within the meanir4; of t'c:e Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 191+.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the d.isrn.ite involved herein.

The facts giv:ino rise to the instant clai..z,z are as follows: The C1a:ir:a,nt was employed by the Carrier in the position of Ni_~,;?Zt 1r,atcbr.:an wt. ~~orth Billerica, Mass. By letter dated July 9, 1976, the Claimant was notified to appear for a hearing scheduled to be held on July 16, 7..9'(6 to develop the facts and to place responsi.bili-ty in connection with charges that the Claimant had allegedly been an acco=:npli.ce to tire theft of Company zraterial from the material yard at ~,jorth Billerica, which yard was within the area encompassed in C7_ain:ant's watchman territory.

 In the handling of this cz.se on the property and. before our Board, Petitioner has raised certain: Lrocedu-ral issues such as violation of Clai.T:zant's due ,process rights.,~credibil:ity of n:itnes"es, c:i.xw--umstantial evidence and an unfair hearing.
 Form 1 Award No. 71+92
 Page 2 Docket No. 71+1+8
 2-;3&J4-Fo- '78

 This Board has regularly refused to interfere with a Carrier's determination as to disciplinary action taken for proven infractions except in instances where the Carrier is shorn to have acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or disc rirtii natory manner which amounts to an abuse of discretion.

 In the conduct of invest irati.ons and, hearings to determine guilt or responsibility in a particular case, the Carrier is not bound to ,prove justification beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal case or even by a preponderance of evidence as does the party having too burden of proof in a civil case. The accepted :na.xir., in Railroad discipline is that Chore must be substantial evidence in support of Carrier's action. "Substantial evidence" has been defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable M-ind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (Consul. Ed. Co. vs. Labor Board 305 U.S. Z_97,

 in the instant clai.m, we have carefully reviewed the entire record and have seriolsly considered all of ti_e argixTr_ents advanced by the concern~4d parties. 'vie are fully aware that dismissal from service is a most serious matter. Ilo-eever, we are lire;ris a aware that the offense of theft of Company material is a most serious ::utter, nrax°rantin di sc.pli ne in the form Of d1mm1SSal. 1' r0:11 tlils record We are not able t0 conclude t:iat; Carrier' S action was unreasona'ole, arbitrary, capricious or disc rimil.natory. The offense was serious, the ev:i_dence against the claimant was substantial, the conduct o1: the lxe.arinc- T)1'OV:1.G'ed the nece:;a.iy elements to make a valid determination of culr:ability. The Claimant was properly disciplined after being afforded his due process rights. Therefore, we cannot substitute our judgement for that of the Carrier. The Claim shall be denied.






Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board




Dated at Cr_icago, Illinois, this 4th day of April, 1978.