Claimant was charged with sleeping while on duty, and after a timely-held Investigation, was assessed a 5 day suspension from, service.

After a thorough review of the Investigation transcript and, the on-property handling of this dispute, it is the opinion of this Board that the discipline assessed will not be disturbed.

Carrier's witness testified to the darkened half of one of four suburban cars; of Claimant stretched out in a prone position facing away from the back rests on the jump seats; of the waste container propped against the door in such a manner that when the door was opened the container would fall; and that even shining a light in Claimant's face and the noise of the falling container did not cause Claimant to stir.

Claimant, of course, in his own defense, ably conducted with the assistance of his Representative, attempted to create a scenario of tension between the Carrier witness and Claimant that; would perhaps undermine his credibility, but this effect is not persuasive. Likewise, the defense's story of waste containers placed in the aisle by conductors or others who work on the coaches was just as unpersuasive.

The Organization also attempted to raise procedural arguments that would convince this Board that the discipline should be overturned. The most serious argument is that of the multiple role of the Assistant Vice President-Commuter operations who signed the notice of charges, who signed the discipline letter and who was the first appeal officer.

This is an argument raised multiple times by this Organization on this property and has been denied multiple times. When the Organization first raised the argument, Carrier responded by saying:

"The fact that the charges were issued by the AVPCommuter Operations and that the discipline was administered by him and that he was the first level of appeal does not in any manner produce a procedural error. This has been the system in place on this Carrier for decades. Further, this system has been upheld by numerous board awards as not prejudicing the claimant's rights to a fair appeal process ...."

See Awards 60, 29, 6 of Public Law Board No. 3166; and Award 42 of Public Law Board No. 2512, each involving the same parties as in the instant dispute.

AWARD