(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Belt Railway Company of Chicago

1. The Carrier violated the Clerk's Agreement, when it suspended Clerk Patrick Powers from actual service 11:00 a.m., September 29, 1971 to 8:15 a.m., October 14, 1971.

 2. Claim that the Carrier's action was arbitrary, without just cause and an abuse of discretion.

 3. Claim that Clerk Powers be compensated the exact amount of his losses, or any and all wage losses sustained, plus interest at the current rate, on the amount of reparations due.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant asserts that the charges against him were not precise;
 discipline was imposed by an official who had no opportunity
 to weigh the credibility of the witnesses; and, in any event, Carrier failed to
 demonstrate that Claimant was in_ t,bor,linate.

 The Board finds that the charges were precise and that Claimant was cognizant of the alleged offense .3t the rather lengthy investigation hearing. See Award 18606 (Rimer) and Awardr; cir_;:d therein.

 The parties cite con Eli.~tirg Awards concerning the role of a hearing officer when discipline is imposel. Upon a thuroudh review of the record here under consideration, the Bo.,rd is i-tal·Le to conclude that the Carrier's action prejudiced Claimant's rights, or denie,l. him anpropriate process.

 The Organization argues that as employee may not be disciplined based solely upon totally uncorroboratood to-;t~mony or based upon surmise or suspicion. See for example Awards 13151 (0'Brien0, 18817 (Hayes), 19005 (O'Brien) and No. 39 of SBA No. 374 (Lynch). But the re,^ord here under review does not suffer from any such impediment. To be :.urc, there is some disagreement as to the precise words used and the exa_t timing of events, but not to the e-tent to preclude the upholding of a finding of insubordiaatio_n. The record does not indicate a "misunderstanding" (See Award 1266'= /SeEf/) but rather a deliberate defiance of a Supervisor, and there i.; a SUfEICLent degree of corroboration of the Supervisor's testimony by another witness, and to some extent, by Claimant, who conceded that he said, in a thre=-man meeting, "I don't want to listen any-


more" and left the room rather abruptly.

 The Carrier's decision as to the question of guilt and the quantum of discipline imposed is supported by substantial evidence of record and will not be disturbed. See Award 19797.

        FINDINGS: 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 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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: Olt 141 * i

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of October 1973.