Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8248
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 804+8
 2-B&OCT-CM-'80



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

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 or employes involved in this dispute are 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, Levy Jones, a Carman at Carrier's Barr Yard Car Shop at the railway terminal facility located in Chicago, Illinois, was dismissed from service effective September 29, 1977, following an investigation held on September 12, 1977, in which Claimant was adjudged guilty as charged of unauthorized possession and attempted theft of Company property.

 On the evening of September 6, 1977, at approximately 8:15 P.m.., three employees, one of whom allegedly was the Claimant, were observed by a Property Protection Department Patrolman taking brass journal bearings fran the Car Shop at Barr Yard and loading the brass into the trunk of an automobile. The Patro3zan imediately reported his observations to his Supervisor and together the Patrolman and Supervisor arrived on the scene at approximately 10:45 p.m. and attempted to
 Foam l Award No. 824.8
 Page 2 Docket No. 804$

identify the owner of the vehicle into which the brass had been placed. During their investigation they learned the automobile belonged to Carman Bobby Roy who had secured permission to bring the car into the Shop area in order to change the oil during his h~.nch period. When approached by the security officers, Car man Roy admitted that he was in fact, in possession of Company property. Carman Roy accompanied the security officers to his automobile whereupon he opened the trunk which contained nine (9) 6" x 11" steeple backs and two (2) flat back scrap journal bearings. Under further questioning, Carman Roy revealed to the security officers that Claimant Levy Jones was one of the other two employees who had been involved in the attempted theft. Roy further related to other company officials the next day that the motive for taking the Company property was an awareness by all three employees involved that it was easy to sell scrap brass "on the street" and that they had determined together that they would secure some brass and sell it. When apprised that there would be a formal investigation conducted regarding the incident, Carman Roy elected to resign from service of the Carrier. On the same date as Carman Roy's resignation, September 7, 1977, Carrier sent notification to Claimant that he was to attend an investigation on September 12, 1977.

 The Organization takes exception to Carrier's action of suspending Claimant from service prior to the date formal investigation was held asserting that such action is violative of Rule 26 of the Controlling Agreement, effective September 1, 1926. Rule 26 reads in pertinent part as follows:

The Organization further maintains that Claimant was not afforded a just and impartial hearing on several grounds, citing as most important the multiplicity of ,roles assumed by the hearing officer. Specifically, the organization notes the hearing officer in addition to holding the hearing also conducted the preliminary investigation, preferred the charges, reviewed the record, assessed the discipline and denied the appeal. This multiplicity of roles, the Organization asserts, led to a biased review of the record, a prejudicial determination of guilt, and an unwarranted assessment of discipline. Finally, the Organization insists that the evidence in the record simply does not support the finding that Claimant was guilty.

 Upon a thorough review of the record, we determine that the objection raised by the organization regarding the multiplicity of roles assumed by the hearing officer did not, in arty way, impair Claimant's right to due process and therefore we conclude Claimant did, in fact, receive a fair and imTa rtial hearing. As to Rule 26, we cannot conclude that Carrier violated said rule but rather, under the circumstances, we believe Carrier acted properly in suspending the Claimant prior
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award. No. 8248
 Docket No. 801+8
 2-B&OCT-CM-'80

 to holding the investigation. Finally, the Board determines that there exists substantial proof in the record supporting the finding of Claimant's guilt and that the imposition of dismissal was neither arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or excessive but instead was an altogehter appropriate and proper discipline given the offense involved.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 By ---~r_f'L.~.~-~'

Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of February, 1980.