Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10537
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10420
 2-SSR-MA-'85
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Hyman Cohen when award was rendered.
 ( International Association of Machinists and
 ( Aerospace Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Seaboard System Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim o f 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.


The Claimant is employed by the Carrier as a Machinist at its Waycross Shops, in Waycross, Georgia. He has a seniority date of August 6, 1976. Following an investigation that was held on October 13, 1981, the Claimant was assessed fifteen (15) days disciplinary suspension for violating Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations of the Mechanical Department "pertaining to *** dishonesty *** willful neglect", in carrying out his assigned duties on September 20, 1981.
Assistant Department Foreman Strickland testified that the Claimant was "dishonest" in the performance of his duties as a Machinist on September 20, 1981 "first, in telling me he did not know how to run the machine. Second, knowing he needed a pair of wheel gauges to do the job and not asking for a pair". The Claimant's statement that he "did not know how to run the machine" is clarified by the following exchange on direct examination of Assistant Department Foreman Strickland.

Form 1 Award No. 10537
 Page 2 Docket No. 10420
 2-SSR-MA-185
 "Q. You stated that Mr. Allen said that he could not run the
 machine and he said that you knew he could run the machine. Isn't
 it a fact that both of you were joking at the time?
 A. Yes sir, it is possible that it would have been said in a
 joking manner. But, how do you know when one is joking?
 Q. You carried it cn as a joke at that time?


Thus, the Claimant's remark was intended as a joke and Assistant Depart
 ment Foreman Strickland accepted the comment as a joke. Underlying the
 banter between them is the fact that Assistant Department Foreman Strickland
 trained the Claimant in the operation of the machine several years ago.
 Turning to that aspect of the dispute between the parties over the
 Claimant "knowing he needed a pair of wheel gauges to do the job and not
 asking for a pair", it should be underscored that the Claimant "is not
 assigned to the wheel truing machine by Bulletin." Assistant Department
 Foreman Strickland did "not exactly" know how long it had been since the
 Claimant had run the machine on a regular assignment. As the Claimant
 recalled, September 20, 1981 "was the first time in approximately three or ,_fir
 four years" that he had operated the machine; he was not as familiar with the
 machine as he would have been, if he "had worked it say previously a day or
 so ***." The Board finds that the evidence supports the conclusion that the
 Claimant forgot that he needed 'a pair of wheel gauges because it had been a
 "long term of time" that he regularly worked the job. Furthermore, Assistant
 Department Foreman Strickland "felt" that the Claimant had kept the wheel
 gauges because of "his past wheel machine experience". He thought "he could
 have still had a set". However, the Claimant unequivocally indicated that he
 "was instructed to give it (the gauges) to the next man who came on the job. "
 He added that "the man leaving the job *** has no further use for the tools".
 Since it was "so long since (he) had worked the wheel machine, (he) was not
 immediately aware (he) needed one. " The Claimant's testimony is credible.
 Thus, the Board is persuaded that the Claimant was not "dishonest" in the
 sense that he was untruthful or lied in the performance of his duties as a
 Machinist an September 20, 1981.
 The record also discloses that the Claimant was not guilty of "willful
 neglect" in carrying out his assigned duties on September 20, 1981. The
 Claimant carried out Assistant Department Foreman Strickland 's assignment
 which was limited to finishing the wheels on the 8092 and truing the wheels
 on the 1844. It is true that the Claimant did not record the wheel data in
 the log book at the wheel machine. However, the log book was not mentioned
 Form 1 Award No. 10537
 Page 3 Locket No. 10420
 2-SSR-MA-185
in the Claimant's assignment and was never disclosed by A-ssistant Department Foreman Strickland to the Claimant prior to the close of the shift in question. It is of some weight that near the end of his shift Foreman Strickland elected to accept the Claimant's explanation that he did not have a wheel gauge by stating "okay, thank you" and then left in a huff." The Board has inferred that the charge against the Claimant of "willful neglect" in carrying out his assigned duties" by "not recording the wheel data in the log book at the wheel machine", is not supported by the record.
Based upon the record, the Board concludes that the Carrier failed to carry its burden of proving that the Claimant was "dishonest" and committed acts of "willful neglect" in carrying out his duties rn September 20 , 1981.


    Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attes
 Nancyf//bever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of September 1985 .