Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10475
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9368
 2-SCL-CM-'85
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. The Carrier violated the controlling agreement when they improperly
 suspended Carman R. E. Moore, Jr. from service and subsequently
 assessed him with a sixty (60) day suspension as a result of an
 investigation held on September 4, 1979.
 2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to reinstate the claimant to
 service with all seniority rights, vacation rights, health and welfare
 benefits and all other privileges that are conditions of employment
 unimpaired as well as compensation for all lost wages plus 6% per annum
 due to the Carrier's action.
 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.


The Carrier urges the Board to dismiss this claim since it was "amended" in being processed to the Board. The amendment concerned the Organization's request for interest as part of a remedy. The Board finds that to be insubstantial to set aside the claim.
Claimant was subject to an investigative hearing under the charge of "being found apparently asleep in your personal vehicle while on duty at Rocky Mount,. N. C., at approximately 2:30 a. m., August 13, 1979." The hearing was conducted in a fair and proper manner. The record shows testimony, by two Carrier Supervisors and a Carman directed to the scene, to the effect that the Claimant was asleep in a prone position in his vehicle. Despite the Claimant's denial, the Carrier concluded that the Claimant was asleep, and the Board has no basis to conclude otherwise.
 Form 1 Award No. 10475
 Page 2 Docket No. 9368
 2-SCL-CM-'85
Sleeping while on duty is well established as a serious offense. The resulting penalty of 60 days' suspension was not excessive, particularly in view of the fact that the period of suspension included time out of service from the offense to the hearing.
The Claimant is a Local Chairman, and the Organization argues that the penalty was in violation of Rule 33 which forbids "discrimination against any employees ...who represent other employees'. In view of the proven offense, the Board finds no basis for a claim of discrimination.





                            By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy J.,,ffe Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of July 1985.