Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11995
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11917
 91-2-90-2-24
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Donald E. Prover when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Union Pacific Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Union Pacific Railroad Company violated the controlling agreement, particularly Rule 37, when they unjustly dismissed Electrician A. C. Thomlison from service beginning May 1, 1989 following investigation held on April 13 and 14, 1989, North Platte, Nebraska;

 2. That accordingly, the Union Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Electrician Thomlison as follows:













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.
Form 1 Award No. 11995
 Page 2 Docket No. 11917
 91-2-90-2-24
 The Claimant was employed by the Carrier as an Electrician at North,
 Platte, Nebraska. During his tour of duty on March 6, 1989, he was observed
 by two Supervisors with his head tilted down and both eyes closed while in the
 passenger seat of a company truck. On March 6, 1989, the Claimant was noti
 fied in writing to attend an Investigation in connection with the above in
 cident. Included in the charge was reference to violation of Rule 602. Rule
 602 reads, as follows:

Under date of March 9, 1989, apparently after a discussion with a Carrier Supervisor, the Claimant addressed the following letter to the Carrier:


When the Organization became aware of the March 9, 1989 letter it objected because the Investigation Rule contained no waiver clause. Conse-
 quently, the terms of the March 9 letter did not become effective. Subsequent- ''
 ly, after several postponements an Investigation was held on April 14, 1989.
 Following the completion of the Investigation, the Claimant on May 1, 1989,
 was notified that the charges were sustained and that he was assessed six days
 actual dismissal (suspension) beginning May 1, 1989.

 The Organization contends the Claimant was not apprised of the Rules that he violated. We find no basis for this contention. The notice of Investigation dated March 6, 1989, very clearly indicates the Rules (including Rule 602) the Claimant allegedly violated.

 The Organization argues that the Claimant's guilt was predetermined. We can find no basis for this argument. Our review of the Investigation testimony indicates that the Investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. The Claimant and his representative were given every opportunity to fully question all witnesses, including a Carrier Supervisor called as a witness for the Claimant. The Organization also argues that the Claimant was not afforded a true and unbiased Hearing because the Hearing Officer acted in a dual capacity, i.e., conducted the Investigation and assessed the discipline.

 law
 Form 1 Award No. 11995
Page 3 Docket No. 11917
 91-2-90-2-24

 The Board has ruled on this argument in numerous Awards. The Board has ruled that the fact an individual conducts the Investigation and also assesses the discipline does not in and of itself constitute reversible error when it appears from the transcript of the Investigation that the Claimant was afforded a fair hearing. As indicated above we have concluded the Claimant was afforded a fair Hearing. See Second Division Award 6057.

 At the Investigation, two Carrier witnesses testified that they observed the Claimant sitting in the vehicle with his head tilted down and both eyes closed for between 60 and 90 seconds. At the Investigation the Claimant admitted that he was in fact sitting with his head nodded forward and his eyes closed. Claimant blamed stress for being in the aforementioned condition and that he was trying to relieve the stress by closing his eyes per instructions which were issued in the Bailey Inquirer. The Bailey Inquirer has a section pertaining to stress and relaxation. It recommends for relaxation to close your eyes and concentrate on a pleasant scene for a few moments.

 It is our conclusion from reading the testimony in this case that the Claimant was guilty of sleeping on duty (rather than meditating for a few moments) thus was in violation of Rule 602, the first sentence of which prohibits sleeping on duty. It is noted the Claimant, in his closing statement, makes reference to having a full belly from just having lunch and the fact it was the first sunny day. Such factors, of themselves, can be conducive to causing an individual to fall asleep.

 It is not clear to this Board why the Carrier prior to the Investigation was willing to accept a five-day suspension as discipline but after the Investigation assessed the Claimant a six-day suspension. Perhaps it was in retaliation for having to hold an Investigation. Whatever the Carrier's reason we believe the circumstances surrounding this case warrant a reduction in the discipline to a five-day suspension.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


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