(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Chicago, Illinois when it failed to notify employe F. Herner in writing of the precise charge against him and withheld him from service pending investigation on an imaginary accusation.

 2) Carrier's action in dismissing employe Herner after not receiving a fair and impartial investigation was unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious; the record ha alleged intimidating remarks.

 3) Carrier shall now be required to return employe Herner to Carrier service with all rights unimpaired, with allowance of payment for all time lost.

 4) Carrier shall compensate employe Herner six percent (6%) per annum on all sums due and withheld as a result of this violative action.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant Herner was dismissed from service following suspen
 sion and investigation involving the following charge con
 tained in Carrier's March 17, 1971 Notice;



i


One witness appeared at the investigation and testified against Claimant. His testimony consisted principally of the following statement:

          "On the morning of March 17, 1971, at about 11:30 A.M. in conversation with Mr, Herner, he stated: You have a wife and kids to worry about and I'm all mixed up. I don't know what I might do and I've got some crazy friends. I could fix it so something would happen to them and you'd never know I had anything to do with it. This isn't a treat but I'm just telling you how things are. I'm all messed up and I don't know what I might do."


No additional testimony was adduced at the Hearing either by the Carrier or Petitioner. Importan witness and only perfunctorily denied the charge at the conclusion of the Hearing

 Before this Board Petitioner seeks reversal of the discipline print' pally on the theory that:

          "No man should be found guilty of a disciplinary charge solely on the unsubstantiated evidence of a sole witness."


In support of this principle, Employes cite several Awards of both Special Boards of Adjustment and Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. In this case, Petitioner's argument lacks substance. The record of the investigation discloses that outside of a concluding perfunctory denial, Petitioner made no effort to seriously refute the charge or challenge the testimony of Carrier's witness. His conduct at the investigation bordered on the ridiculous. For instance, on six occasions he refused to answer the following question:

          "Mr. Herner, do you have a duly accredited representative of your choice present to represent you?"


even though three Union representatives were present in the room at the time. Additionally, he called three witnesses and then refused to adduce testimony from them.

 From a review of the entire record in this case, we will hold that the Carrier met its burden at the investigation. The discipline will not be disturbed and the claim will
          Award Number 19711 page 3

                Docket Ir'uiber CL-19827


        FIIIDII~.S: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee involved is this dispute axe respectively Carrier ,.nd Exployes within the meaning of the Railkay Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjuste`nt Board has jurisdiction wer the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A P D


        Claim denied.


                          ILATIOIL41 RAILRCAD ADJUSt..fT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: L' y. ,~,.,-1~
 Executive .~cretary

        Dated at Chicago, ILinois, this 13th day of April 1973.