(Roberto Lebron PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of the
National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my intention to file an ex parts submission on January 8, 1976 covering an unadjusted dispute between me and the Bro question:





OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant Roberto Lebron was employed by Carrier as
Laborer at its Bulk Flour Terminal - Brooklyn, New York. By notice dated February 10, 1975 Claimant was advised as follows:




























                          SUPERINTENDENT OF OPERATIONS"


Following the investigation Claimant was found guilty and discharged effective February 27, 1975. Cl which was granted and appeal denied April 3, 1975 by Carrier's V.P. Operations and Maintenance. By l of the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks made further appeal on Claimant's behalf hearing was granted, following which the appeal again was denied on April 22, 1975. Thereafter Claimant initiated an Ex Parts Submission to our Board alleging denial of his right to a fair and impartial hearing and seeking reinstatement with full back pay.

The scope of this Board's appellate jurisdiction is well established in discipline matters. We are t supports Carrier's finding of culpability, and 3) Whether the discipline assessed is appropriate in all of the circumstances, or is arbitrary, or unreasonable or capricious. As we view the record there in no question that substantial evidence supported the findings of Carrier that Claimant was asleep and under the influence of an intoxicant while subject to duty on February 8, 1975. The testimony of two eyewitnesses that he was sleeping on duty was never denied several shots of whiskey before reporting to work, although he denied actually drinking on the job. Carrier based its findings on insubstantial evidence or information not on the record. Nor is there any doubt that such offenses when proven are recognized dismissal offenses
                  Award Number 21241 Page 3

                Docket Number M9·21483


assertions that the hearing was not properly conducted because of the bias and multiple roles of the hearing officer. We have carefully reviewed the entire record and find that these allegations were raised for the first time before our Board, never having been presented on the property. Such de novo arguments are not properly before us and cannot be considered. So much of the record as we may consider demonstrates no deprivation of Claimant's rights to a fair and entire record we must deny the claim.

        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

        That 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 28th day of September 1976.