(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (REA Express, Inc.

1. The Agreement between the parties was violated when Miss Mary Milcic was dismissed from the service of REA Express, Inc. on July 2, 1971 without just cause.

 2. REA Express shall reinstate Miss Milcic to service with full seniority rights and benefits,

 3. REA Express shall, commencing July 2, 1971, compensate Miss Milcic for all salary, overtime and any other benefits lost as a result of her wrongful dismissal.

 4. REA Express shall pay Miss Milcit interest at the statutory rate for the state of Illinois for any amounts due under (3) hereof.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The instant matter comes on for decision by this Board as one
 of several cases transferred by joint agreement of the Com
 pany and Petitioner from the roster of cases pending before Special Board of Ad
 justment No. 752. Under the terms of this transfer arrangement, the said cases
 were forwarded as joint submissions in which both parties waived any further re
 buttal or oral argument before our Board.

 Claimant Mary Milcic was dismissed from the service of the Company effective July 2, 1971 for having acquired more than the maximum (60) number of demerits permitted under the Company's Demerit System of Discipline, The proximate cause of this ove Claimant's record (·,uhich already contained 55 demerits) following an investigation and hearing into charges by the Company contained in a letter to Claimant dated June 24, 1971 which reads in pertinent part as follows:





        "Specifically, during your regular tour of duty on June 18, 1971, you left your assigned working area and duties without permission. At approximately 9:45 A.M., you were observed outside the building on the public streets at the Northwest corner of West Harrison and South Clinton Streets."


Claimant's regular work assignment was Clerk in the Bond Department, with hours of work between 8:10 A.M. and 4:40 P.M. Included in these hours are a lunch period and two coffee breaks. Claimant's morning coffee break was from 10:00 A.M. to 10:15 A.M. The charges against Claimant grow out of the allegations by two supervisors of the Company, one the Assistant Manager of the Bond Department, that they observed her outside the building at approximately 9:45 A.M. on the morning of June 18, 19
        At the hearing, Claimant offered in defense testimony by herself and an-

other witness that she had been outside the building between 10:00 A.M and 10:15
 A.M. on the morning in question. Despite the confusion <ngeadered in the record
 by this erid?ence, there is no conflict between this testimony and that offered by
 the Company in support of the charge. Moreover, even if ,such a conflict appeared
 in the testimony, cur role at this appellate level is nest to pass on credibility
 nor to weigh evidence. Rather our function in discipline cases is to pass upon
 the question whether there is substantial evidence to sustain the imposition
 of discipline. (See Award 5032, quoted with approval in 16168). Our review of `
 this record indicates such substantial evidence to sustain the charge against
 Claimant.

 Finally, Petitioner urges that assessnent of 20 demerits resulting in dismissal was not proper discipline and excessive in this case. On this point, we must defer to the long line of awards by this Board, typified by Award No. 14601 (Ives) wherein we said:

        In accordance with the broad latitude given Carriers by this Board in matters of assessing discipline, we will not upset the punishment decided upon by tl:e Carrier, even though the sanction chosen may be greater than that which the Board might choose. (Awards 14272, 11009, 9422)."


        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;
                      Award Number 20034 Page 3

                      Docket Number CLX-20294


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: 614J. Rd
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, thij --Oth day of November 1973.