(Richard F. Ogden
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "1. My discipline of 20 days deferred suspension for
 quote improper submittal of payroll cards for payment
 to J. Ahner, Yard Master July 5, 7 August 2, 4, 1978; J. Windrem, Yard
 Master, August 5, 1978, W. F. Meith, July 8 August 3, 60 1978 causing ad
 ditional expense to Conrail while you were on duty as Clerk Steno at
 oak Island, Newark, New Jersey; and violation of failure to abide by
 Bulletin Number 14 dated 8/1/77 was in violation of the collective
 bargaining agreement,

 2. That my record should be cleared of the 20 day deferred suspension as per collective bargaining agreement."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was charged with improperly performing his
 duties on July 5, 7 and 8, 1978 and August 2, 3, 4, 5
 and 6, 1978. Specifically, the Carrier alleged that claimant, without
 authorization, submitted payroll cards, which caused the Carrier to pay
 certain yardmsaters eight additional hours of straight time pay for weighing
 cars (though the yardmasters actually worked only eight hours). The Carrier
 also charged the claimant with failure to obey written instructions contained
 in Bulletin No. 14 dated August 1, 1977. On September 8, 1978, the Carrier
 sent the claimant notice to attend an investigation which was duly held on
 September 20, 1978. As a result of the investigation, the Carrier assessed
 a twenty day deferred suspension against claimant.

 The claimant has raised a plethora of procedural objections regarding the timeliness and substance o these objections, we find they are without merit. The investigatory process was commenced within the appropriate time limits since the Carrier did not learn of claimant's alleged offenses until, at list, August 10, 1978. The notice of investigation was sufficiently precise in apprising claimant of the charges brought against him.

 On the merits of the claim, the employs contends that he was merely performing the ministerial act of recording the number of hours set forth on the yardmasters' time sheets in the appropriate space on the payroll time cards. The claimant disavows all responsibility for inaccuracies on the time cards asserting that this dispute is really between the Carrier and the yard masters. The Carrier maintains that claimant is responsible for accurately reporting the hours and any wage claims must be approved by the appropriate


Carrier officer before the claimant submits the time cards. According to the Carrier, the claimant knee that the yardmasters worked ,just eight hours on the days in question and so the recording of an additional eight hours (for weighing cars) on these days wee improper unless claimant procured the prior approval of argued, claimant cannot possibly be guilty of improperly submitting time cards for August, 1978, since claimant had transferred to another position on July 26, 1978 and did not even sign the August time cards. The Carrier submitted evidence showing that while claimant did not sign the August time cards, he nevertheless filled is the hours because he was teaching his successor how to perform the work.

 The claimant had the responsibility to properly sad accurately report the yardmeatera' hours on the time cards. According to his written instructions, he had no authority to report hours beyond those actually worked without the express approval of the appropriate Carrier official. A review of the record convinces us that there is substantial evidence proving claimant knee that the yaxdmsatera had not worked the additional eight hours on the dates in question and he failed to procure proper authorization to report the additional eight hours on July 5, 7 and 8, 1978. Claimant did testify that he received authorization to report some of the additional hours but, inexplicably, he could not identify the Carrier official who made the authorization. Claimant's actions were clearly contrary to his written instructions.

 In addition, claimant continued to be primarily responsible for improperly submitting payroll cards in August, 1978 even though he no longer occupied the timekeeper position. The claimant's successor, seeking assistance in learning her new f on the August time cards. Thus, claimant was still performing timekeeper functions after July 26, 1978.

 Giving the gravity of claimant's offense and the problems it caused the Carrier, we find no ,justification for upsetting the Carrier's assessment of discipline. We recognize that claimant had a good prior work record but a twenty day deferred suspension is reasonable when the seriousness of the offense is balanced against the claimant's work record.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board., after giving
 the pasties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon., and
 upon the whole record sad all the evidence, finds sad holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acts as approved June 21., 1934;
                  Docket Number MS-23339


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

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago. Illinois, this 15th day of September 1987.·