f








( Norfolk and Western Railway 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, 1934.

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

The Carrier maintains a freight car repair facility, locomotive servicing track and extensive transportation yard at Frankfort, Indiana. Claimants G. E. Wright and D. G. Rayls are employed as carmen at the car repair facility.

 On July 6, 1980, tank car GATX 72530 was set out of train 1 FB96 at Vernon, Indiana some sixty-nine miles away from Frankfort, because of a hot box at the L-2 location. Inspection of the car at Vernon revealed that the cause of the hot
 Form 1 Award No. 9518
 Page 2 Docket No. 9534
 2 -N&W-CM-' 83

 box was a pitted journal at the Z-2 location. It was further determined that this car had been released from the repair track at Frankfort, Indiana on the previous day, July 5, 1980.

 On July 9, 1980, the Carrier charged Carman D. R. Fulwider, G. E. Wright and D. G. Rayls with:

Carman D. R. Fulwider admitted his responsibility concerning the July 9, 1980 charge by stating in a July 18, 1980 letter that:





A formal investigation in connection with the charge was scheduled and held on July 22, 1980, but "due to malfunction in tape" the Carrier reconvened the investigation on August 20, 1980.

 Following the investigation Carman G. E. Wright was advised by the Carrier on September 17, 1980, that:





Carman D. G. Rayls was advised by the Carrier on September 17, 1980, that:
Form 1 Award No. 9518
 Page 3 Docket No. 9534
 2-N&W-CM-'83

 We believe from the limited evidence before us that the transcript is accurate. The Organization has not made the Carrier or the Board aware of specific testimony, that was left out of the transcript. We find no prejudicial error in the transcript.

 We have reviewed pages 17 and 18 of the transcript and find that Mr. Camp's statement which the Hearing Officer ordered to be stricken from the record, and which statement was marked-out but a legible part of the transcript before this Board, is not prejudicial error. Mr. Camp was allowed to pursue his question on how men start out their assignments at 7:00 A.M. with Mr. Herman; and Mr. Herman did not agree with him. Also the tank car in question was not the first assignment; Mr . Camp had not called himself as a witness; and he was not present on the morning of the incident in question.

 The Organization contends that Acting Assistant Car Foreman Herman could not positively identify Carman Wright as working on GATX 72530 at a time during the work day. The argument is contrary to the record. Mr. Herman's testimony on pages 7, 14, 15 and 18 indicate that he assigned Mr. Wright to repair GATX 72530; and that he was positive that Mr. Wright was on 2 track between 7 and 8 in the morning having worked the first two cars. Mr. Herman disagreed with the testimony of Mr. Wright and Mr. Fulwider that Mr. Wright did not work on the car in question.

 We can understand the General Chairman's vigorous objection to the Carrier's finding that Mr. Wright was responsible for failure to detect and repair pitted journals on the car in question when Mr. Wright testified that he did not work on the car but was working on No. 1 track with Fred Williams; and Mr. Fulwider also testified that Mr. Wright did not work with him, but worked with Fred Williams. Contrary to the testimony of Mr. Wright and Mr. Fulwider, Mr. Herman testified that he assigned both Mr. Wright and Mr. Fulwider to make repairs to GATX 72530; and he also testified that the "Daily Schedule Control" which showed both men to have worked on the car was accurate. Mr. Herman also testified as to the small crew assigned on that day. This Board does not make credibility determinatiazs. The Hearing Officer, Mr. Hill, had the high judicial responsibility of making fair and impartial credibility determinations. While recognizing that evidence existed contrary to his decision, substantial evidence of record, including Mr. Herman's complete testimony as well as the Schedule Control record of work that day, supports Mr. Hill's finding that Mr. Wright was responsible. We point out that Mr. Wright had the right to call witnesses on his behalf. The testimony of Mr. Herman had been given at the previous hearing where the tape recorder had malfunctioned and he was well aware of Herman's position. Mr. Wright testified that he was working with Fred William . Fred Williams was not called as a witness. Mr. Rayls was inspecting and marking up cars on the 2 and 3 tracks; he did not testify as to where hr. Wright was working.
 Form 1 Award No. 9518~
 Page 4 Docket No. 9534
 2-N&W-CM-'83

 We must find, based on the credibility determination of the Hearing Officer, which was based on substantial evidence of record, that the Carrier's finding that Mr. Wright was responsible for the offense charged must be sustained, and the claim on behalf of Mr. Wright is denied.

 Mr. Rayls admitted that it is the responsibility of the checker to certify the repairs that are billed. His testimony indicates that he did not do so. He explained that he did not have a chance to further inspect the car, because there were more cars on the two and three tracks that he was inspecting and marking up, and the car in question was worked and shoved out while he was on the two and three tracks. Also he testified that he was not notified by the carman that anything was wrong, which is the usual practice.

 The record indicates that Mr. Rayls did not inspect the car while it was on the repair track to certify the repairs that were billed. The car had been inspected and chalked, and the bill had been "headed up" on July 3 by another checker the day before the holiday; and it was sitting onihe repair track at the start of work at 7:00 A.M. on July 5, 1980. The work on the car was completed at 9:00 A.M. on July 5, 1980. It was Mr. Rayls' responsibiliy to manage his time to certify the repairs that are billed. Since he did not do so, he was properly subject to discipline. We cannot find. that the ten day deferred suspension was either arbitrary, capricious or excessive. We must deny Mr. Rayls' claim.




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
      osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June, 1983.