Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12281
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12136
 92-2-90-2-277
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Hugh G. Duffy when award was rendered.

 (International Association of Machinists and ( Aerospace Workers PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Carrier") violated the provisions of the Joint Agreement, as amended July 1, 1979, specifically Rule 35, when, subsequent to an investigation which was neither fair nor impartial, it unjustly and improperly suspended Council Bluffs, Iowa Machinist employee D. L. Smith (hereinafter referred to as the "Claimant") from service for a period of ten (10) days.

 2. That accordingly the Carrier compensate Machinist D. L. Smith for all wages lost while suspended and additionally, credit Machinist Smith for time lost for vacation and other benefit rights, and that record of the investigation proceedings, including reference to his unjust discipline, be expunged from his personal 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.

Claimant was charged with excessive absenteeism and tardiness for being absent on one occasion and tardy on five other occasions. After a Hearing on September 8, 1990, Claimant was found guilty as charged and assessed a 10-day suspension, the next step in Carrier's progressive discipline system.
 Form 1 Award No. 12281
 Page 2 Docket No. 12136 Iwo
 92-2-90-2-277
 The Organization argues that he was denied a fair and impartial
 Hearing in that he was not allowed to personally cross-examine the Carrier's
 witness, but could do so only through his representative; had he been allowed
 to do so, the Organization contends, he would have tried to show that he had
 been treated in a manner different from other employees.
 The Board is in agreement with previous Awards which have upheld the
 practice on this property of allowing a claimant to freely make statements,
 but limiting the cross-examination of witnesses to questions by the claimant's
 representative. A review of the record demonstrates that the Organization
 conducted a vigorous defense and was able to actively pursue all relevant
 points on behalf of the Claimant, and that all of the Claimant's rights were
 well-protected.
 As to whether Claimant may have been treated in a different manner
 from other employees, it is clear from Claimant's statements to the Hearing
 Officer that he was making a statement of belief but was not prepared to offer
 any evidence to support his contention. His representative in fact pursued
 this issue when questioning the Carrier's witness and elicited no evidence of
 disparate treatment.

guilty as charged and that he received a fair and impartial Hearing. We there
 fore find no basis for disturbing the Carrier's disposition of this matter.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:
      "Nancy J V4er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of March 1992.