Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9282
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8906
2-SLSF-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Goerge V. Boyle when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada




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.



The claimant was a 5i year employe of the Carrier. At the time of his dismissal he was employed as a car inspector at the Capleville Yards in Memphis, Tennessee. He was removed from servile for allegedly verbally and physically abusing his foreman.

The Employes, on behalf of the claimant, assert that the carrier erred procedurally by late and improper notification and in not holding a hearing promptly.

They also assert that there is no substantial evidence of wrong doing which would warrant the carrier taking such action with respect to the claimant.

The Board disagrees on both counts. There were no substantial defects in the notification of hearing procedures nor were these issues raised on the property as is required at the time of the hearing (Awards No. 7955, 1402. 1788, 3668, 4035, 6373, 811+5 and 8563.)

With regard to the evidence of a dischargeable offense, the hearing officer heard testimony from both the claimant and his foreman which was contradictory.
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 9282

Docket No. 8906

2-SLSF-CM-'82


Based upon this testimony the hearing officer found the foreman's account more credible and took action in accordance therewith.

It has been well established that the reconciliation of directly contradictory testimony and establishment of witness credibility is properly the function of the hearing officer and not the Board who reviews the appeals. Numerous awards might be cited (Nos. 1788, 3676, 5211, 6084, 6195, 6372, 6408, 6489), but it has been said best in Award No. 1809: "The Board is in no position to resolve conflicts in the evidence. The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is for the trier of the facts to determine. If there is evidence of a substantial character in the record which supports the action of the carrier, and it appears that a fair hearing has been accorded the employe charged, a finding of guilt will not be disturbed by this Board, unless some arbitrary action can be established."

In this case there is certainly "evidence of a substantial character". Also, in reviewing claimant's personal work record, the actions reported in the instant case by the foreman are consistent with prior escapades. Moreover the claimant's admission that he had been fired from his previous job for striking a supervisor tends to corroborate the foreman's account.

The representative's citation of his understanding of the "Federal Disclosure Act" is irrelevant and not worthy of consideration as a mitigating circumstance.

Accordingly the claim is denied in its entirety.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad AdjustmT--zt Board

By =~Lc~


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of August, 1982.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division