Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11980
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11736
 91-2-89-2-7
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Appeal of dismissal from service of Electrician (Trades HelperCommunications) Kevin J. Sheehan by the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, effective March 30, 1988.

 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.

Claimant was employed by the Carrier as an Electrician (trades helper - communication) at its New Jersey facility.

 On March 1, 1988, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he was to be held out of service effective that date and was directed to appear for a formal Investigation in connection with the following charges:


Form 1 Award No. 11980
 Page 2 Docket No. 11736
 91-2-89-2-7

 After one postponement, the Hearing took place on March 23, 1988. On March ''
 30, 1988, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he had been found guilty of
 all charges and was assessed discipline of dismissal. Thereafter, the
 Organization filed a Claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging his dismissal.

 This Board has reviewed the procedural arguments raised by both parties and we find them to be without merit.

 With respect to the substantive question, this Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of performing activities that were inconsistent with his alleged chronic back pain. The Claimant was filmed engaging in behavior which made it clear that he was not properly eligible for his medical leave of absence. At no time was the Claimant given the leave of absence to pursue a career in taxidermy. The Carrier has proven its case and the Claimant was deserving of discipline.

 Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.

 In the case at hand the Claimant was guilty of a very serious offense. However, because there is substantial evidence in the record that he was suffering from some physical injury at the time of his medical leave of absence, this Board is of the belief that dismissing the Claimant was unreasonable.

 Therefore, this Board finds that the Claimant should be reinstated, but without back pay. He should be immediately sent for physical examination and if he is healthy enough to work, he should be returned to work but without back pay. The period that the Claimant was off shall be treated as a lengthy suspension.




                          By Order of Second Division


            7 01


Attest:
        ancy J. D e executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of January 1991.