Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9941
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9965
 2-CRC-EW-184
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Hyman Cohen when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement the Consolidated Rail Corporation
 (Conrail) unjustly assessed 60 days suspension - previous discipline
 record considered, effective on or about 15 days from receipt of Notice
 of Discipline, against Electrician Louis John Longo, Altoona, Pennsylvania,
 causing him to be held out of service 43 days.
 2. That accordingly, the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) be ordered
 to restore Electrician Louis John Longo to service with seniority
 unimpaired and with all pay due him from the first day he was held out
 o f service until the day he is returned to service, at the applicable
 Electricians' rate of pay for each day he has been improperly held from
 service; and with all benefits due him under the group hospital and
 life insurance policies for the aforementioned period; and all railroad
 retirement benefits due him, including unemployment and sickness .i?r!efits
 for the aforementioned period; and all vacation and holiday benefit;
 due him under the current vacation and holiday agreements for the
 aforementioned period; and all other benefits that would normally have
 accrued to him had he been working in the aforementioned period in
 order to make him whole, and to expunge his record.
 Findings:
The Second Division o f 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 involved herein.


The Claimant held the position o f Electrician, Grade C at the Carrier's Juniata Shops in Altoona, Pennsylvania. His service with the Carrier totalled approximately 31 years.
The Claimant was charged with poor and unsafe workmanship resulting in an electrical hazard because he improperly installed a 3 phase 230 volt electrical service to a grinding machine in the Carrier's Machine Shop at Altoona, Pennsylvania on January 16, 1981. By the improper installation, the charge indicated that employes were exposed to possible electrical shock. Following the trial, the Claimant was suspended for 60 days which was =educed to 30 days due to leniency.
 Form 1 Award No. 9941
 Page 2 Locket No. 9965
 2-CRC-EW-'84
It is well established in the field of labor relations that in discipline cases the burden of proving that the employe has committed an offense rests w.-,th the employer. See, for example, First Division Award No. 20471. The record warrants the conclusion that the Carrier has failed to satisfy its burden o f proof.
The 2 witnesses who testified on behalf of the Carrier were Assistant General Foreman McClellan and Electrical Engineer Kolesar. Both of these witnesses had no personal involvement in the temporary hookup performed by the Claimant on January 16, 1981. After the Claimant had left the area, and completed the temporary installation, Assistant General Foreman McClellan appeared at the grinding machine and complained about the wiring. He said that the wiring was "skinned up but not clear through." He could not answer how deep the wire was cut; he could not provide a measurement for the insulation on the #8 wire; nor did he see the wire. It should be noted that after taking photographs of the machine he ordered the machine dismantled and failed to preserve any of the wiring used by the Claimant. Assistant General Foreman McClellan requested Electrical Engineer Kolesar to look at the installation. However he failed to inform Kolesar that it was a temporary installation which constitutes a critical reference point from which to evaluate the work performed by the Claimant.
In contrast to the Carrier's witnesses, the Organization called both General Foreman Cherry and Gang Foreman Furgione who played major roles in the work performed by the Claimant. General Foreman Cherry wanted a temporary service since he interned to use the grinding machine for a couple of days after which the machine was to axe scrapped. As a result, he directed the Claimant to make a temporary connnection to the grinding machine. General Foreman Cherry said that he "just wanted it hooked up" so he "could operate it." The Claimant also discussed in detail how he proposed to temporarily wire the machine and General Foreman Cherry approved his plans by saying "al right". The Claimant discussed the job with Gang Foreman Furgione. He acknowledged at the trial that he told the Claimant it was a temporary job. Moreover, he was satisfied during the afternoon of January.16, 1981 that the machine "was running in the right direction." It is of great Weight that both General Foreman Cherry and Gang Foreman Furgione had no knowledge of the charges, given their supervisory roles in the temporary installation.
Based on the record, the Board concludes that the Carrier failed to satisfy its evidentiary burden in proving that the Claimant committed the offenses contained in its charges. Accordingly, Claimant shall be reinstated for the period he was held out of service and made whole for those contractual benefits lost during that period.



Form 1 Award No. 9 941
 Page 3 Docket No. 9965
 2-CRC-EW-' 84
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division
Attest: '`"'
 Nancy J. v - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of June, 1984