(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 8nployes PARTIES TD DISPUTE:

STATI?INT CH' CLAIK: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 and sufficient caus d

(2) The claimant's personal record shall be cleared of the charge and he shall be compensated for all wage lose suffered from February 5 through April 1, 1979."

 OP19ION OF BOARD: Claimant, a track foreman in charge of gang 401s was
 dismissed from service on February 5s 1979. Pursuant to
 Article Its Rule 91(b) (1) of the applicable Agreements the organization re
 quested a plenary investigation. On February 14., 1979s the ohrrier
 formally charged the claimant with an unauthorized absence for February 3s
 1979 and for submitting inaccurate hours worked for himself and two mem
 bers of his gang covering January 29s 30 and 31s 1979. Altar a hearing
 held on February 22, 1979, the Carrier found the claimant lad committed
 both infractions but due to claimant's length of service, the Carrier
 rescinded the dismissal and assessed a penalty of fifty sit days suspen
 sion.

 We turn first to the unauthorized absence charge. Claimant's gang worked a sixteen hour day on February 2s 1979 (until 1:30 a.m.) and claimant was instructed to report to work at 10:00 a.m. on Saturdays Febru 3s 1979. Clalma t had originally planned to have his automobile serviced on Saturday. On Saturdays the claimant's auto broke down. Claimant called the Carrier and there was some dispute whether claimant said he would be late or absent. Claimant never did report to work and never received permission to be absent. Due to work three consecutive shifts. The organization argues that the claimant had good cause for his absence since the car trouble was beyond his control. The Carrier contends that the claimant's car excuses were a subterfuge for taking the day off, at a time, when the claimant knew that the Carrier had an urgent need for manpower.

 After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the unauthorized absence charge. While
                    Docket Number MW-23411


claimant submitted repair invoices demonstrating his automobile was serviced, the service station bills were dated several days after February 3, 1979 and covered such items as fuel and a taw-up which can hardly be characterized as emergency repairs. Claimant knelt the Carrier desperately needed him on Saturday, yet he failed to even adequately notify the proper Carri to work. Claimant further aggravated the situation when, on the following Monday, he curtly responde why he was absent. Claimant said his absence was not the Rondmnster's problem. Thus, under the circumstances, claimant engaged in an Impermissible absence on February 3, 1979·

 Claimant was also charged with inaccurately oar incorrectly reporting the hours he and several members of his crew worked on January 29s 30 and 31, 1979. The hours submitted by the claimant were used to compute the payroll. The Carrier contends claimant was late on January 29 and 30 and two gang members were tardy on January 31. The Organization argues the claimant accurately reported hours worked (pursuant to discussions with the Roadmaster) and even if he committed an error, he had no intent to pad the Carrier's payroll.

 Based on the vague record before us, we must sustain the employs's claim on this charge. Claimant conceded he was late on the days in question and there is no indication either in the payroll records or the Roadmaster's notes that the claimant reported too many hours. Indeed, if anything can be gleaned from the sparse evidence, it seams that some overtime hours may have been held over to the next pay period. As to the number of hams worked by the two crew members on January 31, 19'l9, the claimant had no first hand knowledge they were late since he was absent on that date. The claimant tried to ascertain the hours they worked by calling the tool house, but it is unclear as to whether he received reliable information. The Carrier proffered no evidence demonstrating the claimant intended to extract excessive pay from the Carrier*

 Because the Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof on the payroll charge, we wilt adjust the discipline. The~suspension shall be reduced from fifty-six days to thirty days. A thirty day suspension is a reasonable penalty for claimant's unauthorised absence. Claimant shall be paid back wages actually lost for the remainder (after the thirtieth day) of the fifty-six day suspension that he served.

 FINDINGS: Die Third Division of the Adjustment Boatel, upon the whole
 record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
                    Award Nomber 23293 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-23411


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee 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.


                        A i7 A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTU39=P BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Mcutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago. Illinois, this 15th day of May 1981.