(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

1. The Carrier acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unjust manner and violated the agreement between the parties when on March 22, 1978 it suspended Clerk R. M. Midles from the service of the Carrier for a period of ten (10) working days effective March 23, 1978.

 2. In view of the foregoing arbitrary, capricious and unjust action of the Carrier, it shall now be required to:







OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was given a ten (10) day suspension following
 an investigation held on March 21, 1978 to determine his
 responsibility for allegedly failing to identify himself properly when
 arranging to lay off about 4:35 A. M. on March 3, 1978. He was specifically
 charged with violating Rule 702 of the Transportation Department Rules which
 is hereinafter referenced in pertinent part, '-

This disposition was appealed on the property pursuant to Agreement Rule 49 and is presently before us for appellate consideration.


In reviewing this case, particularly the transcribed recording of Claimant's telephone conversation with Caller Jessie Thompson, we do not find a scintilla of evidence that Caller Thompson knew she was speaking to Clerk Midles. He was initially unaware of her identity as he thought she was a person named Judy and he did not correct the mistaken impression that he was "Lonnie", despite the fact that she referred to him by this name three times.

 It may well be that the ear drops and cotton, which he contends he inserted in his ears a few hours earlier, affected his auditory acuity but the record unmistakably shows that he understood the dialogue that took place.

 If Caller Thompson knew his precise identity, there would not have been any need to keep the third shift position working past the relief time and the concomitant overtime expense. Claimant was under an obligation to identify himself properly and he failed to meet this fundamental employment requirement. His failure resulted in unwarranted confusion and expense.

 The record substantially supports the conclusion that he violated Transportation Department Rule 702 (supra) and the penalty imposed was not unreasonable when the nature of the infraction is considered. We will 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 Employee 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 PA4441~ By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST; Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May 1980.