( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-

(a) Carrier violated the rules of the current Clerks' Agreement at Richmond, California, commencing on or about June 10, 1971, when it wrongfully discharged Mr. J.H. Cleveland from service; and,

 (b) Mr. J.H. Cleveland shall now be reinstated and compensated for all monetary loss suffered commencing June 10, 1971, and continuing until such time as he is reinstated because of such violation of Agreement rules.

 (c) The Carrier shall be required to pay 6% interest compounded daily on all wages wrongfully withheld from Mr. Cleveland commeencing June 10, 1971.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was discharged for insubordination on June
 10, 1971 and reinstated on December 21, 1971 without pay. The Claim herein involves essentially a Claim for lost pay due to the alleged improper discharge.

 Petitioner argues that the investigation in this dispute was improper, denying Clam: due process, on a umaber of grounds. First it is contended that the determination of guilt was made by a Superintendent "...before the transcri and without the Hearing Officer making any recommendation or findings as to the credibility of the witnesses ...." This contention must be rejected becaese not only does the record fail to support the allegation but more specifically because this issue was not raised by Petitioner during the handling on the property and thus is not properly before us (see Awards 14641, 18656, 19101, 19746 and many others). It is argued further that Carrier refused to allow a fellow employe to appear as a witness in behalf of Claimant; the record d relevant to the dispute, in a conference ,-,ith Carrier some six months after the c:.~_;a of ::I:.= i:veetigation. Carrier argues that such evidence cannot De considered by the LoarL, and ;'-a= position is well taken. We have rcpeatedl7 h0-3 -hat ev den.^.e submitted after the conclusion of an invectigation iz inadn·issibls (e.g. Awards 15574 and 19808).


Petitioner argues further that Claimant was denied due process because the determination of guil hours from the close of the hearing and prior to the typing of the transcript of the investigation. minimum time period which must expire before a decision is rendered; usually expeditious handling is preferred by Petitioners. Additionally, there is no requirement that the transcript be typed prior to the decision being rendered. An examin in other respects.

 The investigation in this dispute contains substantial evidence of probative value, even though denied by Claimant, to support Carrier's conclusion that there was insubordinate benaviour. Petitioner argues that the discipline imposed was disproportionate to the degree of alleged insubordination. This Board over the years has consistently found that insubordination justifies dismissal (see for example Awards 16948 and 16074). In this dispute, in view of Claimant's reinstatement, we certainly do not view the penalty a




That the Carrier and the Employcs '~nvolved 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 ha jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and






By Order of Third Division n a ATTEST: Executive SeLrazzry

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July 1975.