1. That under the current Agreement, Mechanical Department Electrician J. H. Urena was unjustly treated when he was suspended from service for a period of seven (7) days beginning March 29, 1992 through and including April 4, 1992, following investigation for alleged violation of portions of Rule 802 of the General Rules and Regulations of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines).

2. That accordingly, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company be ordered to compensate Electrician J. H. Urena for all lost wages due to the seven (7) day suspension, with all rights unimpaired, including service and seniority, vacation, payment of hospital and medical insurance, group disability insurance, railroad retirement contributions, and loss of wages to include interest at the rate of ten percent (10$) per annum."

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Claimant was regularly employed by Carrier as a Mechanical Department Electrician in Carrier's Motive Power and Car Department in West Colton, California. By letter of January 8, 1992, carrier charged Claimant with failure properly to inspect outbound consist IWOCO7QI29, for the $4 traction motor being cutout on unit SP 9612 on Sunday December 29, 1991 -- a violation of Rule 802. Rule 802 states in pertinent part that "[i]ndifference to duty or to the performance of duty will not be condoned."

A hearing was held on March 6, 1992. Following the hearing, Claimant was notified that he had been assessed an actual suspension of seven days.

It is Carrier's position that Claimant failed to notify his supervisor that there was a problem on unit SP 9612, the middle unit of a three-unit consist, and that his failure resulted in the consist leaving the yard with the unit's motor cut out. The Orcjanzation maintains that Claimant followed standard procedure for his yard, notified his supervisor of the problem, and received art acknowledgement from his supervisor that he understood the notification.

A review of the transcript of the Investigation does not provide sufficient probative evidence to support Carrier's position. organization witnesses support Claimant's statement that: the problem was reported to his supervisor.

Testimony by Carrier's witnesses suggests that several other people, including the train crew, would normally also have reported the problem with the consist, and confirm as well that it was standard procedure in the West Colton yard for employees orally to notify the supervisor of any problems with power units. The only testimony directly contradicting Claimant's defense is that of the supervisor involved. In light of the fact that an admission by the supervisor that Claimant had attempted to inform him of the problem would have implicated the supervisor himself in what appears to be a chain of missed responsibilities, the supervisor's testimony is_ at best, self-serving.

Accordingly, we do not find that Carrier has shouldered its burden of persuasion in this case. The claim is, therefore, sustained, with the exception of the Employees' request for interest on the lost wages. There is no precedent to support such a request, and this Board does not intend to plough new ground in this regard.

AWARD