Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10337
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10489
 2-DM&IR-EW-'85
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee James R. Cox when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( The Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range 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.


Electrician Miernicki contends that he was unjustly suspended for 45 days for alleged timecard falsification.
On November 29, 1982 Claimant had called in but was late for work, arriving after his scheduled 7:00 a.m. starting time. He asserts that he arrived at the Electric Shop at 7:30 and, after going to the locker room, recalling that he had left personal items in his car, went to the parking lot to retrieve them. On his way back he met his immediate Supervisor. The Supervisor testified that he asked Miernicki, "Are you just now reporting for work?", that Claimant responded aff=irmatively and explained that he had overslept but had called in. Miernicki stated that he only told the Supervisor that he was late and had called in. He denies that he answered "yes" to the question of whether he was "just now reporting for work".
The Supervisor concluded that Claimant had in fact "just arrived" at that time -- 7:51 a.m. -- and while checking time cards that afternoon, found what he contended was a discrepancy between Claimant's actual and reported times of arrival.
 Form 1 Award No. 10337
 Page 2 Locket No. 10489 moo
 2 -DM& IR-EW-' 85
 The Carrier's case is based entirely upon the Supervisor's testimony that
 Claimant affirmatively answered his question of whether he was "just now" reporting
 for work at 7:51 a.m. This key question, however, was asked over the hood of a
 pickup, as Claimant passed in an area where motors were running. No effort was
 made to determine what items) Miernicki may have gone to his car to get. There
 was no evidence that Claimant was not at work at 7:30. The Supervisor was not in
 the facility at that time.
 There was an initial hearing during which the principal Carrier witness relied
 upon a timecard apparently used November 22nd by Claimant. He insisted that the
 tardiness occurred on that date. The card actually at issue here, also dated
 November _22, 1982, shows an arrival time of 7:30. This timecard had been taken out
 of the rack by the Supervisor at 3:30 p.m. the 29th of November and correctly
 reflects that Claimant attended a safety meeting held that day.
 Our review of the record discloses insufficient evidence that Claimant did not
 report to work at 7:30 November 29, 1982 or that he falsified his reporting time
 that day. Claimant is to be compensated for lost wages less any outside earnings
 during the period of the suspension. He should also be paid from 7:30 a.m. for the
 29th of November, 1982.
 A W A R D





Attest: ,
        Nancy J. er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of March 1985.