(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTi:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The suspension of one hundred twenty (120) days imposed upon E.-tra Gang Laborers J. E. McGee and F. J. McDonald was improper and without j ut and sufficient cause (System File SLA-105-T-70/Case No. 711).

 (2) The personal record of the claimants be cleared of said suspension sad reimbursement be made for Role 25(i).

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimants, extra gang laborers, rare suspended from
 service for a period of 120 days for failure to perform their duties satisfactorily during rail laying operations on December 5, 1969·

 At the investigation, Carrier produced three witnesses, Division Engineer Lager, Track Supervisor Coyadd, and Foreman Gale, who testified that claimants were not performing their duties is a satisfactory manner and rare consequently causing considerable delay to the rail laying operation.

 Claimants testified at the investigation that the delay to the operation vas caused by operational d that they were working to the best of their ability and they believed their work to be satisfactory.

 It is well established that is discipline cases such as the one before us it is not our function to ascertain whether Carrier's decision was unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary.

 We find that there was sufficient evidence adduced at the hearing to support the finding of guilt. However, we believe that the penalty of 120 days suspension was unreasonable and excessive under the circumstances. Both claimants have seven years of service with the Carrier and, bat for the present violation, they both have clear service records.

 Based on the above, we find that the proper measure of discipline should be suspension for fifteen (15) days. Accordingly, we rill uphold the first fifteen (15) days of suspension sad reimburse claimants for the remaining days that they were measure of damages for the 105 days that they were improperly suspended is the


difference between any actual earnings during this period end the eaommt they would have earned had they not been suspended.



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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and






                          By Order of Third Division


A1T3ST:~· X"Ui
        Executive Secl%tary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of November 1972.