Form 1 NATIONAL RAIL~uOAD ADJUST= BOARD Award No. 8201
 SECOND DIVISION Docket 1410. 8021
 2-CRI&P-CM- ` 7 a



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

                ( Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company


Dispute: Claim of Enployes:
        (1) That under the terms of the applicable Agreement the Carrier unjustly suspended Carman Z. H. Jones for 60 days.


        (2) That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Carman Z. H. Jones for all of his work days in the 60 days of suspension.


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 carrder and employe within the meaning of the Railway Tabor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

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

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


The Claimant is a caxman who had 28 years of service when the following events occurred. On January 3, 1978, he was working -with another car-n-an in the Carrier's yard at Fort Z-worth, Texas. At approximately 1:45 P.M., the yardmaster issued an instruction to the Claimant to buckle un the cars on Track No. 18 after he finished work on Train No. 20. This instruction eras given by means of radio commnication,

 The conversation was overhead by the Carrier's terminal superintendent. Further, the terminal superintendent and the yardmaster stated that the Claimant acknowledged the order.

 Claimant has denied that he received a clear order to buckle up the cars on Track 18. Although he admitted to a conversation with the yardmaster concerning work on Track 18, he denies that there was a clear order to perform such work. The Claimant contends that his conversation with the yardmaster was to engage i n the work on a TP drag prior to performi r'-; the work on Track 18. Claimant contends that : ince the work on the TP drab iras not available he was waiting for further instructions before proceeding to the work on Track 18.
 Form 1 Award No. 8201
 Page 2 Docket Wo. 8021
 2-C RI&?'-Ci%7-' 79
Rather, Claimant contends that the proceedings at the hearing were not proper because the notice mentioned his failure to perform the work on Track 18 at 1:45 P.m. He correctly notes that both he and the other carmen were continuing to work on Train 20 through approximately 2:00 p.m. He argues that the erroneous time specified in the charge and in the disciplinary notice is sufficient to void the suspension.

 The Carrier argues that the Board functions in an appellate capacity and it cannot resolve credibility issues presented by the testimony. The Carrier argues that many prior decisions have upheld the imposition of discipline where there is substantial evidence in the record to justify the finding; of guilt,

 It is clear from the transcript that the Claimant did engage in a discussion concerninn the work on Track 18. The Claimant admits such conversation, but justifies his failure to performs such work on the basis of unclear instructions. Such a contention cannot be accepted.

 The decisions of this Board have clearly recognized the appellate nature of the Board's work. Thus, it was stated in Award No. 7325 as follows;

        "Numerous prior awards of this Board set forth our function in

        discipline cases. Our fLu:ction in discipline cases is not to

        substitute our judgment for the Carrier's nor to decidei;he

        matter in accord with what ire iught or might not have done

        had it been ours to deteru.ine, 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 affimative, 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 v,Tas discriminatory, unjust,

        unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary, so as to constitute an

        abuse of that discretion."


Based upon the record in this case, the Board cannot find that the Carrier acted in either a capricious or arbitrary faskiion when it issued the di.sciplinar~j action to the Claimant. It is the conclusion of this Board that there was substantial evidence presented at the hearing to justify the Carrier's finding and its issuance of discipline.

                      A W A R D


    Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSMETU BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board

Form 1 Award. T'To. 8201
 Page 3 Docket 11o. 8021
 2-CRI&P-C=·:-' l9

 As---Brasch - Administxvative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois., this 5th day of December, 1979.