(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of =he General Committee of the Brother-
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Central Vermont Railway, Inc. that:

 (a) Carrier failed to prove its charges against Signal Helper G. A. Nichols in connection with the alleged unauthorized removal of copper wire from Railway of the wire to a scrap dealer.

 (b) Carrier reinstate Signal Helper G. A. Nichols to service and pay him for all time lost subse

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was discharged on August 4, 1972, after
 an investigatory hearing held on July 25, 1972,
 for the unauthorized removal of copper wire from Carrier's property
 and the subsequent sale of the wire to a scrap dealer. The record
 indicates that Carrier had discovered that amounts of used copper
 wire were found to be missing, in early June 1972; this wire was at
 track-side after a pole rehabilitation program and was to be coiled
 and salvaged. Claimant was a Signal Helper and had been working on
 the pole line rehabilitation program.

 Claimant was the only witness at the investigation, and no documents were introduced. The transcript of the investigation reveals the following evidence: Claimant sold 970 pounds of copper wire to a scrap dealer on or about May 15, 1972; Claimant stated that the wire did not come from Railway property and refused to indicate where he had obtained the w Carrier concluded that Claimant was lying and that he had stolen the wire from the property.

 Carrier argues cogently that the Board may not substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier o and discipline. Carrier contends, with significant precedent and force, that dismissal from service is an appropriate measure of discipline for dishonesty. Carrier a


request for leniency during the handling on the property is indicative of Claimant's guilt. On this Organization's denial that it ever requested leniency, it is well established that an offer to settle does not in itself constitute an admission of violation (Award 18045).

 Carrier has cited many well reasoned Awards in support of its thesis that the Board should not substitute its judgement for that of the Carrier in this dispute. In all of those Awards we note the proviso, however, that we will not disturb the Carrier decision where it is supported by substantial evidence. In this dispute the record of the investigation is devoid of any significant evidence establishing Claimant's guilt. An employe and in this case the Carrier has simply not presented evidence to support its conclusion; it has not met its burden of proof and credibility is not in issue. The Clai
        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 wit 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 violated.


                  A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By g~f~ Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of Nay 1974.