Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9501
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9679
 2-IHB-FO-'83
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Francis M. Mulligan when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That, in violation of the current agreement, Laborer T. Janiszewski
 was unjustly dismissed from service of the Carrier following trial
 held on November 24, 1980.
 2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to make the aforementioned
 T. Janiszewski whole by restoring him to Carrier's service with
 seniority rights unimpaired, made whole for all vacation rights, holidays,
 sick leave benefits, and all other benefits that are a condition of
 employment unimpaired, and compensated for all lost time plus ten (10%0)
 percent interest annually on all lost wages, also reimbursement for all
 losses sustained account of coverage under health and welfare and life
 insurance agreements during the time he has been held out of service.
 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, T. Janiszewski, laborer, was employed at the Gibson Engine House, Gibson, Indiana, for Carrier, Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, at the time of his discharge. Prior to his discharge, T. Janiszewski had been in the employ of the Carrier approximately two and one-half (2'k) years. He was discharged for pilferage of gasoline on November 16, 1980 at approximately 11:25 P.m. Claimant, appeals on several grounds including the basis that the trial held November 24, 1980 was not a fair and impartial trial as required by the terms of the controlling agreement.

 In the case of the Claimant, the evidence produced against him was circumstantial. This does not mean the evidence was not of such a quality that under proper circumstances, his termination would not be effective. However, another issue in the matter is whether or not the trial was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Basically, if proven, the Claimant is being terminated for stealing less than Six and no/100 (6.00) Dollars worth of gasoline. Needless
 Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 9501

Docket No. 9679

2-IHB-FO-'83

 to say, the Claimant vehemently denies pilfering any gasoline and in fact, he testified that he purchased the gasoline at a service station off of the company premises. The record will indicate that Claimant was not given an opportunity to have questions read back that Claimant desired to have read back. In addition, the hearing officer made some judgments on the record regarding testimony presented which judgments were adverse to the Claimant.

 Finally, there is a contention that the hearing officer, prior to the hearing, told the Claimant that he was as good as fired. In addition to all of the above, Carrier sets forth the position that the appeal was untimely. dismissal letter is dated December 4, 1980 and the appeal of International

 Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers is dated December 20, 1980. There is no evidence in the record as to when the letter of December 4, 1980 was sent or recieved. Basically, the record does not substantiate the issue of lack of timeliness in a clear and convincing manner. As was stated in Award No. 8367 (Wesley A. Wildman, Referee):

 "This Board has read and considered at length the numerous (and sometimes conflicting) decisions discussing the problem of that point at which the multiplicity of roles played by a hearing officer in a discipline or discharge case becomes prejudicial to the interests of a claimant and precludes a fair, just and adequate hearing. Wisely, we think, a clear majority of these cases, in assessing whether minimally adequate due process was present or not, look for tangible and specific relationship between the miltiplicity of roles played by the hearing officer and any prejudicial impediment to Claimant's defense which did, in fact, or probably did in fact, occur."

 In this case, the Claimant did not receive the quality desired.

 A review of the entire record does not convince us that Claimant is without guilt in this matter. However, the conduct of the trial was less than desirable. Claimant is to be reinstated without back pay.

 The

 A W A R D

 Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.

NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

AL72


BY /

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of May, 1983.