(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE.



1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks' agreement when, following an investigation on July 23, 1979, it suspended Mr. William Robinson from Carrier service for a period of three days, commencing July 31, 1979; without ,just cause;

 2. Carrier shall now compensate Mr. Robinson for all time lost as a result of this suspension from service and shall clear his record of the charge placed aga


OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Extra Board Clerk, W. Robinson.. after investi-
 gation, was suspended three (3) days for failing to respond to a call fc%r service. On July 16, 1979, at approximately 7:05 p.m., Claimant was called to perform service on the night turn and there was no answer at his telephone.
pline imposed should be set aside because Claimant was not afforded a full
 and impartial hearing. It asserts that the Conducting officer led the testi
 mony of Carrier's principal witness "in a manner clearly intended to place
 the most adverse inference possible on Claimant," thereby violating Rule 26
 of the Agreement. Therefore, it argues that the hearing provided was
 defective.

 As to the merits, the organization claims that Carrier failed to establish that Claimant is guilty as charged. In its view, the record does not establish that Claimant received a call or that he was not home at the time of the alleged call.

 In addition, the Organization maintains that, assuming Claimant's guilt is established, the penalty imposed is excessive. It argues that this is Claimant's first offense under Carrier's progressive discipline procedure. Therefore, it contends that a three (3) day suspension is premature. The Organization was able to call witnesses to examine them and to cross-examine the witnesses called by Carrier. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Organization was not able to present a full and thorough case. On the contrary, the record discloses that the Organization was able to fully introduce evidence and argument in support of Claimant's position.
 I , >r,


                                                        n


                          Award Number 23405 Page 2

                          Docket Number CL-23376


          Moreover, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Conducting Officer was leading or unduly influencing carrier's witness. There is also nothing to suggest that carrier's witness' testimony was affected by the Conducting Offices.


          In all, we are convinced that Claimant was afforded a full and impartial hearing.


          We will next turn to the question of whether Claimant is guilty as charged. The Organization claims that Claimant was home and available at approximately 7:05 p.m. on the date in question. It asserts that Claimant's telephone did not ring at the time of the a witness, Lucille Halmagyp Assistant Chief Yard Clerkr testified that she called Claimant at least two times at approximately 7:05 P.m, Halmogy stated that the telephone rang but was not answered.


                The resulting credibility issue was resolved

        against claimant by the Conducting Officer. The record affords no basis for disturbing that determination. After all, the trier of fact has had the advantage .of observing the witnesses d f position to ,judge credibility then we arep confronted only with a written y record. Absent some evidence of a lack of impartialityp the Conducting Officer's findings shall not be overturned. Here, there is nothing to indicate that the Conducting O


                Given the fact that Claimant is

I, guilty as charged, he is subject to
          appropriate disciplinary action. The evidence establishes that this is Claim

          ant's third offense under the progressive discipline procedure. Claimant was

          not home when called on July 8, 1979 and refused to accept a call for service

          on July 10., 1979. He received verbal consultations on both occasions and on

          July 13, 1979 he received a letter confirming these consultations; all in ac

          cordance with the progressive discipline procedure.


          The progressive discipline procedure is the system on this property. Claimant had knowledge of it. It is not an unreasonable system. Indeed., consideration of a Claimant Moreover, the Organization has acquiesced in its use.


          Under the progressive discipline procedure this is Claimant's third offense. As such, he is subject to a three (3j day suspension. Since Claimant was treated in accordance with this procedure.. we see no reason to overturn the discipline imposed.

Ir

                            Award Number 23405 Page 3

                          Docket Number CL-23376


          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 respectivelv Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railvay Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;


          Mat 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 ADJU$BOARD

                                      By Order of Third Division


          I, ATTEST:

                Executive Secretary


          Dated at Chicago., Illinoisp this 6th day of October 1981.