Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12143
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11881
 91-2-89-2-190
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company violated the current agreement effective December 1, 1985, specifically Rule #26, when they arbitrarily dismissed Equipment Installer Electrician R. M. Villwock from service on January 11, 1989.

 2. That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company reinstate Mr. Villwock to service and make him whole for all wages and benefits lost account of this most unjust and arbitrary action of the Carrier.

 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 Carrier alleged in its amended charges that Claimant had unauthorized absences on December 9, 1988 from 10:00 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. and on December 16, 1988 from 11:40 A.M. to the end of his tour of duty. The Carrier further alleged that on December 9, 1988, Claimant had utilized a company vehicle without permission while on personal business and subsequently filed a falsified work report claiming those hours as hours worked. Following a formal Investigation held on January 4, 1989, Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty as charged and was dismissed from the service of the Carrier.
 Form 1 Award No. 12143
 Page 2 Docket No. 11881
 91-2-89-2-190
 The Organization has argued on-the-property that the Claimant was
 unjustly dismissed. It maintains that the Claimant had fully advised his
 Supervisor of where he would be on both dates in question. The Organization
 further argues that the Claimant never submitted a falsified time report to
 payroll. It contends that the Claimant failed to receive a fair and impartial
 Hearing.
 The Board finds no procedural violation. If the Organization felt
 that they were unprepared for the testimony of Mr. Grosso, they did not
 request a postponement. Our review of that testimony and the entire Rearing
 finds it fair, impartial and in compliance with the Agreement.
 Considering the merits, we find substantial probative evidence to
 support Carrier's findings of guilt to each and every charge. The record
 supports the conclusion that Claimant's absence on December 9, 1988 was
 unauthorized. Claimant's Supervisor testified that he had never given per
 mission for the Claimant to be absent on December 9, 1988 from 10:00 A.M. to
 11:30 A.M. He further testified that he found out inadvertently that Claimant
 was absent from his position. The Supervisor stated that Claimant never in
 formed him prior to that date or during their morning teleconference that he
 had an appointment. In fact, he had informed the Claimant that it was an
 important day when a major project was occurring. There is no dispute that
 the Claimant utilized a company vehicle without authority.
 There is a great deal of discussion in the record over whether or not
 the Claimant filed a falsified work report indicating his work on that day. ·rrr''
 The testimony clearly indicates that Claimant handed his Supervisor a time
 report indicating that he had performed work during the hours of 10:00 A.M. to
 11:30 A.M. on December 9, 1988. His Supervisor testified that when he took
 exception to Claimant's hours of work on that date, the Claimant stated that
 "the work report was correct." Although payroll did not receive that report,
 its submission and existence was a matter of record. The Organization has
 emphasized a second work report brought to the Investigation. Claimant there
 in argued the first was only a rough draft. There is no evidence of record
 supporting any prior practice of rough drafts.
 As for events of December 16, 1988, Claimant was informed that he
 could take care of personal business on his lunch hour. Claimant admits that
 he did not return to work due to automobile problems. The record is clear
 that the Claimant made no attempt whatsoever to phone the Carrier. Carrier's
 findings of guilt in this record are supported with sufficient probative
 evidence.
 The only question left for this Board's consideration is the imposed
 discipline. Importantly, there is no evidence that the Claimant's work record
 was ever discussed or considered while this dispute was on the property. Its
 submission at this time by the Carrier is improper. Absent that information,
 this Board finds no record as to the Claimant's length of service or past
 disciplinary record. While the Organization argued on property that the
 Claimant was a "conscientious and diligent employee," the charges alleging

 falsification of time reports, unauthorized use of company property and un
 authorized absences were serious and proven. We are unable to find the dis
 cipline as excessive and will not disturb the Carrier's action.
 Form 1
 Page 3

 Award No. 12143
 Docket No. 11881
 91-2-89-2-190

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: _

 J. D -Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of September 1991.