(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Soo Line Railroad Company

(1) Carrier's action in the dismissal from service of Mr. Eugene F. Hoertsch effective September 15, 1974, reduced to a period of suspension with subsequent reinstatement to the service June 10, 1975, in Seniority District No. 33, St. Paul, Minnesota, was unjust, arbitrary and capricious.

 (2) Mr. Eugene F. Hoertsch shall have his record cleared of any and all charges which may have been placed against him because of this arbitrary discharge; and reduced discipline of suspension.

 (3) Mr. Eugene F. Hoertsch shall be reinstated to the service of the Carrier on the position of Chief Clerk with seniority and other rights unimpaired.

 (4) Mr. Eugene F. Hoertsch shall be compensated for all wages and other losses sustained at the rate of pay of the position of Chief Clerk in St. Paul, Minnesota, account of this arbitrary suspension.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant in this case was dismissed from service
 on September 15, 1974 following a hearing which
 was held "in connection with irresponsible performance of duties . ; .
 to the extent of mishandling of station records, funds, correspondence,
 waybills, reports and general station supervision." On appeal,
 claimant was reinstated to service on June 10, 1975 with no pay for
 time lost. The dispute in this case concerns the demand for compensa
 tion for lost wages during the period that claimant was out of service.


The scope of this Board's review in discipline cases is
 well defined. "* * * Our function is but to pass upon the question
 whether, without weighing it, there is some substantial evidence in
 the record to sustain a finding of guilty. * * *" (Award No. 16074
 - Perelson). See also 21299, 21290, 21236 and 5032 among others.
 Based on our review of the voluminous record in this case,
 there is substantial evidence to support Carrier's determination that
 claimant was guilty as charged. From the record, there were no valid
 mitigating circumstances evidenced which would exonerate claimant
 from his duty and responsibility in this situation. Carrier's con
 sideration of his long years of service was evidenced by their
 reinstatement of claimant to service after 9 months. Such action
 is clearly within the managerial discretion of the Carrier and, in
 our opinion, was not capricious or arbitrary. The claim is therefore
 denied.
 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 ,p

                                        ;,


          That the Agreement was not violated v·'''' ~. E "`''~


                      AWARD a, ~~


          Claim denied. _/ ~~.~ ^~,.r


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


    ATTEST: ~~'

    Executive Secretary


    Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of May 197$.