Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BQARD Award No. 8$96
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8752
 2-ICG-SM-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
 ( Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company

 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, 193+.

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

 Form 1 Award No. 8896
 Page 2 Docket No. 8752
 2-ICG-SM-182

 An investigation was held on August 24, 1978 to determine whether Claimant was absent from his assigned duties between 3:10 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. on August 11, 1978. Based on the investgative record, Carrier concluded that he was impermissably absent and assessed a 90 day suspension penalty. This disposition was appealed.

 In defense of his position,-Claimant raises several procedural objections, which he contends affected his contracted for due process rights. He argues that the August 15, 1978 notice of investigation did not state any rule or rules which were allegedly violated and asserts that the hearing officer's assumption of multiple investigatory roles prejudiced his right to a fair and impartial trial. He argues that the testimony of Carrier witnesses were contradictory and inconsistent and of no evidentiary value in supporting the charges. Specifically, he contends that the testimony of Machinist C. Luster and Boilermaker R. LaPointe confirm that he was in his work area during the time in question.

 Carrier contends that he was afforded an investigative trial consistent with established due process standards and that the record unmistakably shows that he was improperly absent from his assigned duties. It asserts that he was given a clear and specific order by Supervisor R. P, Seely to remove drain hoses from locomotives 9272 and 8095 and also to work slips and check both locomotives, but that the work was not done. Supervisor Seely testified that he could not find Claimant, despite his diligent search for him in the work area, until about 5:00 P.M. when he saw Claimant come out of the compartment behind the cab 'of locomotive #5050 and other Carrier witnesses testified that they distinctly heard Claimant being paged on the public address system.

 In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier's position an both procedural and substantive issues raised. Careful analysis of the investigative record does not reveal that Claimant°s due process rights were violated. He was sufficiently apprised in the August 15, 1978 notice of investigation that he was being charged with absence from his assigned duties and he was capable of preparing a competent defense. He was not disadvantaged by this notification and importantly, he did not object at the beginning of the investigatory proceeding, when the hearing officer asked ham if he was ready to proceed. Moreover, we find no inconsistency among the three roles assumed by the hearing officer, since it is judicially proper under the decisional law of the Board for a Carrier official to proffer charges, conduct an investigation and render a disciplinary decision, (See Second Division Award Nos. 8I47, 5972, 3613, 1795 and Third. Division Award Nos. 13383, 16347 and 16678. In addition, we find no evidence that his past disciplinary record was used to establish guilt is charged by Claimant, but rather we find that it was used to determine the extent of the discipline administered.

 As to the substantive specification, we find substantial evidence of record, particularly, the unrebutted and amply corroborated testimony of Supervisor Seely, that Claimant impermissibly absented himself from his duties, notwithstanding explicit instructions to perform work, on locomotives 8272 and #8C?g5. He was pointedly guilty of this charge. While we are reluctant to modify Carrier°s disciplinary penalty because it reflects a fidelity to the principles of progressive discipline, we believe that 90 days suspension is somewhat excessive and we will reduce it to 60 days suspension. We warn Claimant, however,
 Form 1
 Page 3

 Award No, 8$96
 Docket No. 8752
 2-ICG-SM-182

 that we will not look kindly upon future recidivist behavior and expect him to comport faithfully with his employmentrobligations. He is to be compensated only for the wages losses suffered during the 30 days subt:,raeted from the original90 days suspension, minus any wages he earned elsewhere during this period.

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained to the extent expressed herein.

NATIONAL RA IIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By 49
 rie Brasch - Administrat ve Assistant

 Dated ~t Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of February, 1982.
 lqw


The Majority .In this Award correctly ruled teat none of Claimant's procedural rights was abridged; Claimant was "pointedly guilty" of the charge, and that the penalty reflected "a fidelity to the principles of progressive discipline." A reader versed in the numerous Awards of this Board adhering to the principle that the Board may not substitute its ,judgment Por that of the Carrier would expect that the logical conclusion to the Majority's "Findings" would be a denial Award. However, the Majority, after making these astute observations, made an about-face and for some inexplicable reason reduced the 9C, days suspension to a 60 days suspension.
 The Majority's conclusion is all the more unbelievable when one takes note of Claimant's past discipline record, which the Majority purportedly considered. Auring his eight years of service with the Carrier, Claimant compiled nine (9) letters in his file regarding either tardiness or absenteeism, was disciplined on one occasion for 27 days for leaving the property without permission and on another occasion was disciplined 45 days for absenteeism. The instant case was but another example of Claimant's cavalier attitude towards the performance of his duties with the Carrier.
 Considering the fact that numerous Awards of this Board have ruled that dismissal is proper in situations of this nature, the Majority's reduction of the discipline in this case was totally unwarranted and without justifiable reason.
 Hence, we dissent.

DISSENT oF CARRIER MEMBERS

TO AWARD 886, DOCKET 8752


~'
 ~M. FAG

a _ A ' 4 !4~


D, M. LEFKOW

 J E. MASON

 0 CONNELL

 ~ ~ ~ ~i