(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and ( Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, and Jervis ( Langdon, Jr., Trustees of the Property of ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

(a) The Carrier acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory manner amount it assessed a 30 day suspension on P. C. Murphy, Crew Dispatcher, Penn Station, New York, N.Y.

 (b) Under the circumstances involved, the discipline was not warranted, and should be voided or reduced to not more than a reprimand.

 (c) That Claimant P. C. Murphy be compensated for wage loss during the period out of service.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Petitioner seeks to have a 30 day suspension
 voided or reduced to a reprimand. The suspension
 was issued after hearing and findings of guilt on the following charge:

In determining the quantum of discipline after the hearing, the Carrier considered Claimants record of four prior reprimands and one seven (7) day suspension.

 The hearing record shows that, on May 9, 1972, the Claimant was assigned as a Passenger Crew Dispatcher, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Pennsylvania Station, New York, New Y No. 11 which had a reporting time of 12:30 a.m. on May 10, 1972. The Claimant noted the vacancy on a scratch pad, but failed to enter it on the regular work sheets provided for recording such information. His handling of the matter, the Claimant conceded, was a failure to carry


out the regular procedures for recording a vacancy to be filled from the Conductors Board. At the conclusion of the testimony, one of Claimant's Representatives stated that Claimant accepted responsibility for the vacancy being left off the regular work sheets; however, it was asserted that extenuating circumstances existed in that Claimant had been fatigued by the abnormally heavy work burden which he carried prior to and at the time of the incident. It was specifically noted that, in the 25 days preceding the incident, the Claimant had worked 264 hours as compared to 136 hours called for by his regular assignment. Also, the error occurred while he was covering the work
In its Submission the Petitioner contends that, in light of the extenuating circumstances, and the Claimant's 21 years of service with only four minor infractions on his record, the 30 day suspension was excessive. No issue has been raised, either on the property or in the Petitioner's Submission, with regard to Claimant's guilt.

 We have given careful consideration to Petitioner's contention, but, on the whole record, we fin out, the Claimant received the mark-off phone call at 12:05 p.m. and, thus, he had until his tour of duty ended at 4:00 p.m. to enter the vacancy on the regular work sheets. So, even though Claimant was covering his own and another Crew Dispatcher's duties during the latter's lunch period, he had ample time to record the vacancy after the lunch period was over. We also note that, although Claimant's Representative stated that Claimant was fatigued from abnormally heavy work, the Claimant himself gave no testimony to support such conclusion or otherwise indicated that such work influenced his failure to record the vacancy. Final record, since the prior infractions are not so palpably insignificant as to be called "minor", we conclude that this facet of the case affords no ground for disturbing the Carrier's action. Accordingly, we shall deny the claim.



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


:hat this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and






                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~' y
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of March 1974,

 :I