(Brotherhood of Railway. Airline and Steamship Clerks, (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Maployes PARTIES TO DISPU!^: (The Belt Railway Company of Chicago

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
 (GL-8860) that:

 1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when, following an investigation on June 9, 1978, it suspended Clerk H. Patton from service for a period of sixty days without just cause:

 2. Carrier shall nova compensate Mr. Patton for all time lost as a result of this suspension from service, including loss of July 4, 1978, holiday pay and all lost overtime potential earnings, and shall clear his record of the charges placed against him.

 OPINION OF BOARD: An investigation was held on June 9, 1978 to
 determine whether petitioner improperly claimed
 excessive overtime on May 14, 1978. Carrier found him guilty of submitting
 a falsified time claim and suspended him from service for sixty (60) days
 effective June 14, 1978. This disposition was appealed on the property
 pursuant to Agreement Rule and is presently before this Division for
 review.

 Before proceeding to an analysis of the substantive issue that is contested, this Board will consider the procedural objection raised by Claimant regarding the conduct of the investigative proceeding. Claimant contends that he was not afforded a fair and impartial trial consistent with the intent and spirit of Rules 25 and 26, since the May 2 6, 1978 Notice of Investigation did not delineate precise charges, thus precluding him

 that the n as va
 from preparing gue and a rigorous and competent defense. He claims

 of the notice shows that it waand s sufficiently tdo not o permit Careful reading
 Y worded permit a reasonable opportunity to respond to the primary focus of the investigation. There were no due process improprieties.
                  Docket Humber CL-23001


Claimant was found guilty of an offense that is intolerable in this industry. He was charged with falsifying his time record. The amount of time improperly claimed, ten (10) minutes, was admittedly minimal. But, in principle, it was serious. The investigative record indicates that he should have been relieved from his duty tour at 3:00 PM. But he was not relieved until about 3:50 FM. His decision to remain on duty beyond 3:00 FM was consonant with accepted practice. That is, he remained at his station until relieved. Claimant contends that Carrier should have disallowed, his time claim rather than to charge him with this offense. In fact, the Organization asserts that it was inconceivable to think that a person with thirty years of unblemished employment would contem his time claim was mistakenly prepared.

 Contrawise, Carrier contends that he was "disgruntled" for having to work beyond his tour duty. It asserts that the relieving clerk discovered this discrepancy when he checked with the chief clerk to verify the actual time he started work. It contends that his overtime claim was not inadvertently wilful response to his having to work beyond 3:00 PM-

 In In our review of this case, we concur with terrier that
 theft of time is a serious offense, irrespective, of the amount im
 proper) claimed. The record shows that he claimed an additional
 ten (10~ minutes of overtime. ButCwe do not find a calculated design
 or motive for his deportment.) If he were relieved on time, the issue
 would be moot. Certainly, it is difficult to conceive how a person
 with an exemplary work record would contemplate such action. He was
 mindful that it is severely punished in this industry. He was never
 disciplined or reprimanded in the past . Of course, the time claim
 speaks for itself, butat cannot be firmly established that he wil
 fully falsified it.) Similarly, it is difficult to conclude, as
 Carrier has done in this instance, that the late relieving clerk pre
 cipated this response. The cost-benefit gains are patently incongruent.
 (At best, we have a presumption. )This finding does not warrant a sixty
 (60) day suspension penalty, especially where as here the evidence
 doesn't support willful theft. (A correlative presumption exists that
 he could have mistakenly prepared the time claim. Accordingly,~we will
 reduce the aforesaid penalty to a letter of reprimand, which we believe
 is justified to impress upon him the importance of accuracy when pre-
 paring such claims.) He should have exercised a greater degree of.
 diligence when he prepared the overtime claim and this disciplinary
 modification will best serve the purpose of insuring that it will not
 happen again. The original penalty was too excessive for this employe
 when all the facts and circumstances are judicially considered.
 Award Number 23057
 Docket Number CL-23001

        FINDIHG3: 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 Eiaployes 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 violated to the extent expressed herein.

 Page 3

              A W A R D


Claim sustained-to the extent expressed herein.

 ATTEST:

 Executive Secretary

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLISTMNT BOARD
 BY Order of Third Division

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day op November 1980.