Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ALZ7USTMENT BOARD Award No. 9851
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9926
 2-CR-MA-184
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO


Dispute: Claim o f Employes:
1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation be ordered to remove the discipline of two days suspension - deferred, from the service record of Machinist C. Atkins.


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 employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute invol ved herein.


An investigative hearing was held on March 19, 1980 to determine the Claimant's responsibility in connection with an alleged failure to replace a missing brake shoe on Engine 2908 on February 20, 1980.
Subsequent to the investigation, the Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty and he was assessed a two-day deferred suspension from duty.
The Carrier raises a threshold procedural objection to the movement of this case to the Board for review. It contends that the Employee's Statement of Claim does not conform to the requirements of Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, because the claim neither stated the question involved nor described the dispute. The Carrier's contention in this respect is a reasonably arguable one. However, the record is clear that the Carrier understood the nature o f the dispute, the reasons for it, and the relief requested by the Claimant. Accordingly, we find that the issue at dispute is appropriately before the Board on its merits.
The Claimant, a Machinist, was responsible for treeing wheels on Engine 2908 on February 20, 1980. This function also included the replacement o f brake shoes when found necessary.
 Form 1 Award No. 9851
 Page 2 Docket No. 9926
 2-CR-MA-184
We have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied that the Claimant did, in fact, kvrk on Locomotive 2908 on which a brake shoe was missing. Testimony and other evidence in the record shows his performance of a duty with respect to the replacement of the missing brake show was inadequate. It is not incumbent upon the Board to substitute its judgement for that of the Carrier if there is evidence to support the finding of guilt and we find such evidence here. Therefore, inasmuch as the Board does not find the punishment assessed arbitrary or capricious, the claim is denied.





                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: _ _
        Nancy J D er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of April, 1984