Parties to Disxmte: ( (Carmen)

                (

                ( Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company


Dispute: Claim of Employes:
        1. That as a result of an investigation held on Wednesday, August 4, 1976 Cayman Painter John Jenkins zrras suspended from the service of the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Tta1.1-vray Company for a period of five (5) working days -- August 21 through August 25, 1976. Said suspension is unjust, unfair, unreasonable and in violation of the current working agreement specifically Rule 116 and 100 (old rules 22 and 35).


        2, That the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, be ordered to compensate Carman Fain-ttier John Jenkins, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, for eight (8) hours on each of the five days he was suspended, said compensation to b e at the pro rata rate of pay.


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

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

    Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


Claimant was suspended from the sex-rice of the Carrier for 5 days after an investigation when he was found guilty of being, absent from work on certain dates, reporting late on certain dates, sleeping while on duty and falsifying his time card.

 The claimant first alleges that he did not get a fair hearing because the hearing officer acted in a multiplicity of rolls at the hearing in addition to performing a prelininary investigation. Wile ire adhere to our position that the Carrier coffbi.nes the judge, jury and prosecutor rolls in one person at its own peril, we do not find any prejudicial conduct in the instant came.
 Foam 1 Award No. 79+3
 Page ? Docket No. 77+1
 2-EJ&E-CM-' 79

 As to the specific charges, we find that with one exception, the finding; of guilt is supported by substantive evidence of probative value. We do not believe that sufficient evidence was adduced to support the charge of falsifying the tire card. The record is just too thin to support the Carrier's finding. The charges of being absent, late and sleeping on duty are grounded on evidence sufficient so as to keep this Board from disturbing the finding of the hearing, officer.

 We further find that the five day suspension was warranted as a penalty for the charges in trnieh we concur in a finding of guilt,

                      A W A R D


    Claim denied,


                          NATTOTII~h RAILROAD A'DJUSTTET3T BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 BYemarie Brasch - Adninistrative Assistant

        'I Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of May, 1979.