Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11767
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11636
 89-2-88-2-144
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Paul C. Carter when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen/ A Division of TCU
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad
 ( Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That Cayman Feliz Diaz was unjustly dealt with, in violation of Rule 29(a) and that his hearing was neither fair nor impartial.

 2. That the Carrier be ordered to compensate Cayman Feliz Diaz for all lost time from November 6, 1987 through November 19, 1987 during which time he was unjustly assessed a fourteen (14) calendar day actual suspension.

 3. That the Carrier be ordered to make Cayman Feliz Diaz whole for any benefits which are a condition of employment which he may have lost as result of his unjust suspension.

 4. That the Carrier be ordered to pay Cayman Feliz Diaz interest at the 12% rate per annum for any payment he may receive as result of this claim.

 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.

Following a rather extensive Investigation concluded on October 28, 1987, Claimant, assigned as a Cayman at Carrier's Western Avenue Coach Yard, was assessed discipline of fourteen days actual suspension, effective November 6, 1987 for allegedly violating Rules L and N of Carrier's Employee Conduct Procedure.

 The Board has carefully examined the transcript of the Investigation which resulted in the discipline assessed Claimant. We find that the Investigation was properly conducted; none of Claimant's Agreement rights was violated.
 Form 1 Award No. 11767
 Page 2 Docket No. 11636
 89-2-88-2-144

 In discipline cases the burden is upon the Carrier to adduce in the Investigation substantial evidence in support of the charge against the employee. The "substantial evidence" rule was set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States as:

See Second Division Awards 11626, 11237, 11180 among others.

 The matter of proof in the present dispute gives the Board serious concern. We find that the Carrier has not adduced substantial evidence in support of the charge. Discipline must be based on evidence adduced in the Investigation, and not on speculation or conjecture.

 The Claim will be sustained except we find no proper basis for Part 4. There is no provision for the payment of "interest at the 12% rate per annum."




                              By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. ~- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 27th day of September 1989.