Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11179
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11230
 2-CR-EW-'87
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Paul C. Carter 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 unjustly suspended Altoona, Pa. Electrician (Crane Director) L. E. Williams 45 days pursuant to a Notice of Discipline dated March 19, 1985 and unjustly held him out of service pending a trial and decision from March 4, 1985 through March 18, 1985.

 2. That accordingly the Caxrier be ordered to restore Electrician (Crane Director) L. E. Williams to service with seniority unimpaired and with all pay due him from the first day he was held out of service until the day he is returned to service, at the applicable Electrician's (Crane Director) 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 benefits for the aforementioned period; and all vacation and holiday benefits 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 expunge his record.

 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.

At the time of the occurrence giving rise to the dispute herein, Claimant, with about ten years of service and no record of prior discipline, was employed by the Carrier as ;3 Crane Director at Altoona, Pa. On March 4, 1985, he was instructed to attend a trial beginning at 3:35 PM on March 7, 1985, in connection with:
 Form 1 Award No. 11179
 Page 2 Docket No. 11230
 2-CR-EW-'87
 "Failing to properly direct movement of 15-ton Crane in
 a Bay E & M Shop on March 1, 1985, at approximately 6:20
 P.M. resulting in personal injury to G. D. Imler."

 On the same date, March 4, 1985, Claimant was notified that he was being held out of service:

Following the trial, Claimant was notified on March 19, 1985, that he was
 disciplined by "Forty-five days suspension (time out of service to be ap
 plied.") Notwithstanding the discipline assessed, the record shows that Claim
 ant was actually held out of service March 4 to March 18, inclusive.
 A copy of the transcript of the trial conducted on March 7, 1985, has
 been made a part of the record. We find that the trial was properly conduct
 ed. The charge was sufficiently precise to enable the Claimant and his repre
 sentative to prepare a defense.
 It is well settled that in discipline cases the burden is on the Carrier
 to produce substantial evidence in support of the charge. The "substantial
 evidence" Rule was set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States as low
 follows:
 "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It
 means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
 accept as adequate to support a conclusion." (Consol.
 Ed. Co. vs Labor Board 305 U.S., 197, 229)

 (Second Division Award No. 6419).

 Another principle strictly adhered to by the Board is that the Board, being an appellate tribunal, may only properly consider the issues that were considered by the parties to the dispute in the handling on the property. Appeal on the property to the Carrier's highest Designated Officer of Appeals in this case was by means of a Joint Submission, dated July 19, 1985, signed by the Local Chairman for the Organization, and by the Manager-Labor Relations, for the Carrier. The Joint Submission, made a part of the record is rather lengthy. Some rather substantive arguments in behalf of the Claimant were set forth by the Local Chairman. The response by the Carrier was that upon review of the transcript of the trial, the discipline was being modified from forty-five (45) days suspension to that of the time withheld from service.

 The time that Claimant was withheld from service was from March 4, 1985, to March 18, 1985, an overall period of fifteen days and eleven work days.
 Form 1 Award No. 11179
 Page 3 Docket No. 11230
 2-CR-EW-'87

 We may agree with the contention of the Carrier, made in its Submission to the Board, that the accident involved, resulting in a personal injury to a maintenance employe was due to human failure on the part of a number of employes who may have taken a cavalier attitude in regard to their work. However, based upon our careful review of the Transcript of the Trial, and the record of the handling of the dispute on the property, we find and hold that the Carrier has not presented substantial evidence to warrant discipline against the Claimant. In the handling on the property the Carrier showed no Rule or instruction violated by the Claimant. We will award that Claimant be compensated for the actual work days withheld from service, which we understand amounted to eleven, compensation to be computed in accordance with paragraph (e) of Rule 7-A-1 of the applicable Agreement, and that any discipline on Claimant's record, as a result of the incident, be expunged.




                              By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy J .,,,~er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 25th day of February 1987.