(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

(1) The suspension of one (1) day imposed upon Trackman R. J. Knight was improper and without just and sufficient cause (System File B-1402).

 (2) Trackman R. J. Knight shall now be allowed the benefits prescribed in Agreement Rule 91(b) (6), Article ll."

 OPINICH OF BOARD: Claimant was given a one-day disciplinary suspension
 for his absence from work on March 17, 1976, without
 permission in violation of Carrier's kale 189 which reads as follows:

Upon reporting for work on the following day, Claimant was immediately given the suspension for his failure to report the previous day. During the investigation held in the matter, Claimant asserted that he had been granted permission to be off duty on March 17 by his regular foreman (who was not on duty when the Claimant reported an March 18). The regular foreman testified that he had not been asked for nor had granted such permission prior to March 17.

 It is a well established principle that the Board will hot substitute its Judgment for that of a fair and impartial hearing officer in resolving conflicts in testimony. In this case, however, the Board can properly mice some further inquiry, for two reasons: (a) the disciplinary action was taken prior to the investigatory hearing; and (b) there wan no opportunity for confrontation between the Claimant and his regular foreman upon his return on March 18.
 Award Number 22149
 Docket Number Mil-21998

 Page 2

 It is the Carrier's responsibility to make an affirmative case for disciplinary action. Beres the facts are that the Claimant did fail to report an March 17. Further, his attendance record is notably deficient, showing ten absences out of 51 days in the previous three months. To respond, and in view of his prior attendance record, the Claimant needs more than an unadorned statement that he had received permission to be off. Alleged witnesses to the discussion with the foreman did not appear at the hearing. So explanation of the purpose of the day off was given. Had the foreman granted permission for the Claimant to be absent, it seems unreasonable for him simply to deny it.

 The Organization correctly states that this dispute is a matter of the word of one employe against one supervisor. Nevertheless, in view of the reasoning followed herein, the Board finds that the Carrier's action should not be disturbed.

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.

 ATT&3T: i

NATIORAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July 1978.