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

(1) Carrier violated the rules of the Clerks' Agreement when it dismissed J. H. Hall from the service of the Company on January 23, 1970.

 (2) Mr. J. H. Hall, shall be paid one day's pay (at rate attached to position of Baggage and Mail Porter) for January 23, 1970 and each subsequent date, 5 days per we all rights unimpaired.

 OPINION OF BARD: Carrier dismissed Claimant from its service on January 3,
 1970 after a hearing into charges contained in a notice under date of December 26, 1969 from Carrier to Claimant which read as follows:

The basic facts out of which the claim grew are not in dispute. Claimant, a Baggage and Mail Porter with 29 years serv=ce, was on December 19, 1969 erroneously issued a pay draft rightfully belonging to a fellow employee, one John A. Lewis. Upon learning of the error, Claimant as holder of the check noretheless wrongfully endorsed the name of payee John A. Lewis to the back of the instrument, passed it to the Strand Pool Room and retained the proceeds.

 Petitioner bottoms its submission on behalf of Claimant on the proposition that the discipline meted case and in light of Claimant's length of service, is so excessive as to be arbitrary or incommensurate with the offense. Upon a careful review of the record, we must conclude that ample compcrent evidence was addressed at the hearing and investigation to support the charges. Moreover, these acts do constitute sufficiently serious violations to warrant discipline. While discharge of an employee with a long service record is a severe penalty, it cannot be said on the basis of this record to exceed the considerable latitude granted to Carrier in


In reaching this conclusion we are not insensitive to the decisions of this Board wherein discipline assessed by a Carrier has been modified. See Awards 18106 (Quinn), 19488 (Brent), 19807 (Blackwell). Careful reflection, however, reveals that in these matters we were in the main so compelled by evidentiary deficiencies, procedural irregularities prejudicial to a fair hearing,or the firm belief that the action taken was so harsh as to be unconscionable in the circums (Parker). We are unable to so conclude on this record and, accordingly, the claim must be denied.

        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

        The Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of November 1973.