At the hearing, on August 27, the only evidence submitted by Carrier was a letter signed by Helen L. See, which had never been seen by either Claimant nor his representative prior to the hearing. In this letter, her complaint as to the Claimant Possett was as follows:

"The person in charge brought my water to the counter. . This person dressed in the black suit came back and asked me for my breakfast ticket. Well, he didn't give me one, then he accused me of having it in my purse. I didn't even have it made out for my breakfast. He was insulting, though he gave me a piece of paper to make out my breakfast to be ordered."

It appeared that the Superintendent had called Miss See on the telephone. To him, he alleges, she reiterated "that he was insulting in the manner in which he insisted she had a check." She did state that the piece of paper he finally handed her was a regulation cheek.

The Claimant at the hearing denied any misconduct or discourtesy on his part.

We have before us a sitaution similar to one presented to this Board in a recent award between these same parties, Award 12815, Hall.

The Carrier here, as in that case, offered no corroboration of the charge made in the passenger's letter. Carrier did offer a "memo" of an alleged conversation over the telephone between Helen See and the Superintendent. This was merely a reiteration of the original charge made in the letter, and could not in any respect be considered as corroborative.

The evidence presented established nothing more than that a complaining customer was unduly aroused because the steward had suggested to her that she might have misplaced her breakfast cheek. Her suggestion that he was insulting and discourteous to her constitutes nothing more than a conclusion on her part, which was not justified under the facts stated.

While conceding that in discipline cases letters may be used in establishing dereliction of duty on the part of the employe without producing the authors of such letters, still, when a single letter is offered in evidenve based purely on inferences and conclusions without any corrobrating evidence, and without any admission by the employe of any misconduct on his part, it is entitled to very little weight as evidence, and is insufficient to sustain a charge made against an employe.

For the foregoing reasons, we must find that the Claimant did not have a fair and impartial investigation as required by the Agreement and he was wrongfully withheld from service.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

AWARD