Joseph A. Sickles, Referee


(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

 STAMEN OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The suspension of five (5) days imposed upon Motor Truck Operator Charles Bailey for alleged 'failure to protect your assignment without proper authority between 12:30 P.M- sad 1:00 P.M., Friday, September 8, 1978' was without ,just and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to such a charge (System File TRRA 1978-37).

 (2) Motor Truck Operator Charles Bailey shall be compensated for all wage lose suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was withheld from service on September 8, 1978,
 pending the outcome of the hearing on the charge that he
 failed to protect his assignment without proper authority for one-half hour on
 that day.

        Subsequent to the hearing, the Carrier advised that he was guilty of -the infraction and he was 5 day suspension.


At the hearing, the Claimant admitted that he was away from his assignment between 12:30 and 1:00 p.m. on the day in question without specific permission, but he testified that the Fore left with "the truck" to get a "couple of sodas" for himself and another individual, but the truck d difficulties concerning getting to his vehicle so as to get back to work; which arrangement was stifled by "Mr. Stogner" who told him to park his car and ride back in the truck.

 The Carrier concedes that the Foreman granted the Employe permission to leave the work site to get a soda at 11.:56 a.m., but it insists that the Employe's unauthorized absence was not due to any legitimate reason, and that accordingly the discipline assessed was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an unreasonable abuse of discretion.

 It appears from a review of the record in this case that the Claimant was away from his work area without permission, but; that he was-not totally the master of his own fate, and that he did attempt to get back to the work area as `7 soon as possible. At the same time, we feel that the record does support the conclusion that the Employe was, to some extent, remiss in his actions on the day in question.
                      Award Number 23334 Page 2

                      Docket Number MW-23217


While we are mindful of the hesitancy exhibited by most Neutrals to substitute their own judgment for that of the Carrier, under the entire record here we feel that a one day suspension would have been more than adequate., and we will only day.

        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 aad..Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved Tune 21,.1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the dlaftpUne vas excessive,


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustatnad.;#n;,accordunce vith-the Opinion.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSZ71'uN`i' BOARD

                              By Older of Third Division


                M


A'1`1~5T:
        Executive::Seamy


Dated at -Chicago, ' Illtac3p, : this' i.9th day of . June, 19$.

 ,.~ -.
    - Grn

            v


      1 ._~


o.~ !. t