Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10170
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10250
 2-N&W-SM-'84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
 ( Sheet Metal Workers, International Association
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( 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 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.


Claimant, D. L. Jordan, a Sheet Metal Worker at the time of the incident in question, was first employed by the Carrier on September 20, 1969. He was assigned to work in the Diesel Shop from 7 a.m. until 3 p.m., Wednesday through Sunday, at the Carriers Decatur Shop in Decatur, Illinois, doing repair work on locomotives and cars.
On January 8, 1982, Claimant was notified to attend a formal investigation for the purpose of determining his responsibility in connection with being absent from his assigned job on December 17, 1981, from 11:20 a.m. until 12:05 p.m. As a result of said hearing, Claimant was found guilty of the charges and was assessed a ten-day suspension.
The organization contends that Claimant was not provided a fair hearing in compliance with Rule 33. Rule 33 states:
 Form 1
 Page 2
Award No. 101761
 Docket No. 10250
 2-N&W-SM-'84
"No employee shall be disciplined without a fair hearing by designated officer of the Railroad. Suspension in proper cases pending a hearing, which shall be prompt, shall not be deemed a violation of this rule. At a reasonable time prior to the hearing, such employee and his duly authorized representative will be apprised of the precise charge and given reasonable opportunity to secure the presence of necessary witnesses. If it is found that an employee has been unjustly suspended or dismissed from the service, such employee shall be reinstated with his seniority rights unimpaired, and compensated for the wage loss, if any, resulting from said suspension or dismissal."
The Organization argues that the hearing officer had prejudged the Claimant, and the Carrier's charges against the Claimant were never proven; and, consequently, the Carrier did not meet the burden of proof.
Finally, the organization argues that since the transcript is devoid of any evidence, there is no justification for the discipline imposed; and the claim should be sustained.
The Carrier argues that at approximately 10 a.m. on December 17, 1981, Claimant was instructed by Assistant Foreman D. E. Fozzard to "Unit 2479 to do pipe work as needed, as it was there for wreck damage". The Carrier contends that no work was completed between 10 and 11 a.m. that morning and that the lunch period in the Diesel shop is from 11 to 11:20 a.m. At 11:30 a.m., General Foreman Vern Havice discovered that the pipe work in Unit 2479 had not been performed, and no one could find Claimant until he showed up at the Diesel Shop office at 12 noon.
The Carrier contends that Rule 33 of the current agreement was complied with in that the Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial investigation.

 Carrier contends that Claimant was found guilty of the infraction with which he was charged. Moreover, Carrier argues, the penalty assessed was commensurate with the offense.
The Board has reviewed all of the evidence and finds that Rule 33 was fully complied with and Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial hearing. He was timely notified of the charges against him, he was well represented by his Organization at the hearing, he was allowed to call witnesses and present testimony on his behalf, and he was able to cross-examine the Carrier witnesses.
This Board also finds that the hearing officer was justified in finding that Claimant was wrongfully away from his work area on December 17, 1981, and he had no good explanation for not being in his proper place and performing work between 11:20 a.m. and 12:05 p.m. on that date. There was credible testimony of three competent witnesses that Claimant was absent from his assigned job.
 Form 1 Award No. 10170
 Page 3 Locket No. 10250
 2-N&W-SM-'84
It has long been held that this Board is not constituted to weigh questions of credibility and to substitute its own judgment, unless, of course, there is no basis for such a finding. Here, there is adequate basis for upholding the credibility of determination.
This Board also finds that based on the wrongful acts of the Claimant and his past work record, the ten-day suspension imposed on him was not excessive. It is a well-established principle of this Board that the evaluation of the facts in discharge cases is the responsibility of the Carrier's officers who conduct the hearing and the investigation. Our function is to examine the record, make sure that the Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial hearing under the term; of the agreement, and that there was no predetermined bias or prejudice against the Claimant; that there was no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the penalty, and that the punishment fits the crime; i.e., that the discipline was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or excessive. It has become axiomatic that it is not the function of the National Railroad Adjustment Board to substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier's in disciplinary matters unless the Carrier's action be so arbitrary, capricious, or fraught with bad faith as to amount to an abuse of discretion.. We have reviewed the discipline imposed in this case, and we do not find that it violates any of those principles.





                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:

      4~9 -

        Nancy J -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 5th day of December 1984.