Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No, 833+
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8215
 2-IC GSM-' 80
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered,

Parties to Dispute:


Dispute: Claim of Employes:
















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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employee involved in this dislnzte are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved one 21, 193+.

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

Claimant, who had been in the employ of the carrier for over five years, was dismissed from service on April 18, 1978, He had previously been suspended on March 20, 1978 pending an investigation that was duly held on April 4, 1978. Claimant was charged with being absent from his assignment without proper authority on March 20, 1978, and intoxication while subject to duty on the same day.
 Form 1 Award No. 8334
 Page 2 Docket No. 8215
 2-ICG-SM-' 80

 The most pertinent facts are that claimant reported to work at 7:00 a.m. on March 20, 1978, At about 11:15 a,m., stating he was feeling sick, the claimant punched out. After punching out, he saw his immediate supervisor and told his supervisor lie was i11 and that he had already left his assignment, The supeitrisor did not order the claimant to return to work. About a half hour after the claimant had punched out and when he was no longer on company property, three of the carrier's supervisors observed the claimant walking unsteadily down a sidewalk open to the public. The supervisors confronted the claimant and discovered he was carrying a half empty bottle of vodka. According to the supervisors, the claimant told them he had punched out at 7:15 a.m. and that he had only worked 15 minutes because he was too drunk to continue working.

 The union contends the investigation was unfair for two reasons. First, the notice of the disciplinary investigation failed to refer to a specific rule that was ostensibly violated and thus the claimant was not apprised of the precise charges against him within the meaning of Rule 38, Second, the union claims that the hearing officer unreasonably interferred with the union's attempt to examine witnesses. Assuming there was a fair hearing, the union argues that the carrier failed to sustain its burden of proof on either charge. The claimant, according: to the organization, was 371 and properly punched out according to Rule 24 of the Section B Agreement. Furthermore., the union argues, at the time the carrier`s supervisor confronted the claimant staggering down a sidewalk along a public thoroughfare, the claimant was not intoxicated (he was feQling the side effects of medication) and even if he was intoxicated, the claimant was no longer subject to dtjtV. The carrier argues that the claimant failed to procure permission from his supervisor to punch out at 11:15 a.m. (after only four haute on the job) and. so when he was observed staggering down the street a half hour later he was still subject to duty. Alternatively., the carrier argues that the claimant was extremely intoxicated at 11:40 a.m. and therefore he must have been intoxicated before 11:15 a.m.

 For the reasons set forth below, this Board finds that the claimant did leave his assignment without authorization but under the circumstances of this case the carrier has failed to develop substantial evidence that the claimant was intoxicated while subject to duty.

 Absent from his assignment without proper authority
The claimant received a fair hearing. While the notice informing claimant of the charges against ham which is dated March 21, 1978,Add not refer to a particular rule, the charges were definite and the claimant was able to present an able defense at the hearing. The claimant was aware of the nature of the charges against him. Mere recitation of a numerical rule in such notices would. be inadequate and here the carrier specifically spelled out the two violations. Reference to a rule would not have added any substance to the notice. Similarl,it, the hearing officer only interferred with the organization's questioning of witnesses to the extent necessary to insure the questions were in proper form. At no time did the officer prevent the organization from inquiring into the facts underlying the charges.
 Form 1 Award No. 833+
 page 3 Docket No, 8215
 2-ICG-SM-'80

 Rule 24 of the Section B Agreement requires the employe to obtain the permission from his foreman before he leaves his assignment "._ except in case of sickness". So the issue is whether or not the claimant was genuinely ill when he punched out on March 20, 1978. Without repeating a long line of precedent, it is not the function of the board to refrain from reviewing issues of fact. We may not substitute our judgment fox the reasonable judgment of the carrier and we cannot weigh the credibility of witnesses. Second Division Award No. 6489 (Bergman). Here, there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the hearing officer's conclusion that the claimant was not ill. He was observed shortly after punching out with all the characteristics of alcohol intoxication. In addition, the claimant did not offer a doctor's excuse showing he was sick, Fran this fact, it was reasonable for the carrier to infer the claimant was not i11 and so the claimant cannot avail himself of the sickness exception in Rule 24. Therefore, the claimant was absent from his assignment without proper permission.

 The Intoxication Charge
Company Rule 14 forbids the use and possession of intoxicants while subject to duty. While there is substantial evidence demonstrating that the claimant was intoxicated at 11:40 a.m. on March 20, 1978, there is not even a scintilla of evidence showing that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol between 7;00 a.m. and 71:15 a.m, The claimant's immediate supervisor did not notice aMy unusual behavior by the claimant at 11:15 a.m. Here, the claimant's immediate supervisor was under the impression, albeit the mistaken impression, that the claimant has properly left his assignment and so the claimant was no longer subject to duty. The claimant was no longer subject to duty and was already off company praptky. However, the claimant's subsequent intoxicated condition was, as we ruled above, proper evidence to show the claimant was not actually i11 when he punched out. The carrier though has tried to use the off duty intoxication observed by the three supervisors to shave the claimant must have been drunk before 11:15 a,m. Without a blood test or a doctor's examination, this position is inherently speculative. No witnesses testified that the claimant was drunk before ptmching out. The carrier failed to meet its burden of proof on the intoxication charge.

 Under the circumstances, we rule that discharge was excessive here because the carrier proved only one of the two charges. The claimant shall be reinstated without back pay but with unimpaired seniority rights.




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

      semar a rasc - n s vee ss s an


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of April, 1980,