Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, , . Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
              (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company


                3Z&IM OF CLAJMi Claim of the System Committee of thr- Prdthoc4~e9d (OL-8913) that:


(1) Carrier, violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Bensenville, F11tqatp whep it charged Employe W. H. Burton, held an investiiatiou and dis mipW him without proving the alleged charges,

 (2) Carrier shall now be required tq reinstate Rmploye Y. H. Barton, clear hip record of the alleged charges and compensate him for all lost time com winetug Peoapber 6, 1978 and continuing until he is returned to service;

 () Carrier shall further be required to pay psemtiuasfo= claimant's hogl,th and welfare, life insurance and dental plan coverage which it would have =A9 held it apt unjustly dismissed him from service.

    (4) Carrier shall further be required to pay interest at the rate of

    s4$ 9ee.half (7J) percent per annum, compqunde4 lJg on ihg anniversary

date of this claim based on the amount due in Item (2) above.

 OPItag Op BOARD: Claimant W. H. Barton, a Janitor, was issued a November 23, 1978
 Notice of Investigation to be held on No-rember 29, 19781

        "...for the purpose of developing the facts and circumstances in connection with your alleged solicitation of, and acceptance of monies from a Railroad Contractor (Future Janitorio sad Wig Pleasing Service, R. Basulto prop.) for the award of a contract, or contracts."


The ueee further specified three time periods from 1973 to 1978 when the claimed soileitation and payment occurred. On December 6, 1978 Claimant-vas dismissed.

 At the investigation various Carrier offic;.'- :hatted that they had interviewed Mr. Basulto on separate occasions and that ue told them that Claimant had demanded and on occasion received cheers made to the order of Claiasat's wife
 ^. for contracts to clean Carrier's facilities. Mr. Basuito did not appear yv the investigation but his written statement containing information. he had sup pli.o41 in the interviews was included in the record.
                      Award Number 23471 page 2

                      Docket Number r',-23222


The Organization contends that the record is insufficient to sustain discipline because it is based entirely upon hearsay, i.e., the contractor did not appear at the investigation., his written statement could not be crossexaminedp and the testimon the Carrier's charges rather than independent corroboration. In the opinion of this Board Carrier's decision to terminate Claimant was not based solely on hearsay. Rather there is additional objective evidence in the entire record, namely the three checks to the order of Claimant's wife for $250.00 eachp the said wife having been an employe of the Railroad during the period involved, and Claimant's position as one concerned with the proper maintenance of the Carrier's facilitiesp all of which are consistent with and lend support to the contractor's assertions. There was substantial evidence to sustain the Carrier's decision to discipline Claimant. In view of th- .;eriousness of the misconduct termination is reasonable.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidencep finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over k
 the dispute involved herein; and
        That the Agreement was not violated.

        A W A R D

        Claim denied.

        NATIONAL RAILROAD AWTE24ENT BOARD

        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago. Illinois, this 8th day of December 1981.