NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS'D.SENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 Irvin M. Lieberman.. Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 Award Number 24066
 Docket Number MW-24087

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

 (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it suspended Welder Helper H. L. Robertson and Laborer A. Golden from service for two (2) hours on June 12 1979 without benefit of a hearing (System File C-4(13)-HLR/AG; 12-39(80-8j J).

 (2) The claimants each be allowed two (2) hours of pay at their respective straight-time rates because of the aforesaid violation."

 OPINION OE BOARD: Claimants were employed at Carrier's Rail Welding Plant
 with assigned hours of 3:30 P.M. to Midnight. On July 12,
 1979 Claimants, according to Carrier, did not report until after the safety
 rule of the day had been read and the work was underway. terrier asserts
 that the men were over six minutes later whereas Petitioner claims that they
 were "over two minutes" late. The two employes were assigned to work at
 about 5:30 P.M. and were read the safety rule at that time. The Claim herein
 was triggered by their loss of two hours' work.

 Petitioner maintains that the two employes were disciplined by being withheld from work without benefit of an investigation and hence their Claims are justified. Carrier,, on the contrary, denies that there was indeed any discipline involved and states that the two men were treated similarly to other employes reporting late at the particular facility. Carrier explains that the men normally worked on an automated assembly line approximately onehalf mile long. On the d present and supervise the start-up on the line in a timely fashion. He did not have dine to stop and re-arrange the forces on the line when late employes straggled in.

 An examination of the record reveals no evidence to contradict the Carrier's position that the Claimants were s:ea'_ed consistently with other employes reporting for work late at the Weld=~-_ Plant. Further, Petitioner's reliance on as ambiguous statement by the Foreman involved is not persuasive particularly since it contradicted as earlier version of the same incident authored by the same supervisor. At bests the two statements are contradictory, from the Union's poi to indicate that the Claimants were indeed disciplined. Cn the contrary, they were treated consistently with other employes and that treatment cannot be considered to be punitive. T'.:e fact is that the taro me= did not meet their obligation to report to work on ti.-....c and suW'ered aor-.al consequences of that deficiency.






That the Carrier ahd the Employes involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier sad Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acts as approved June 21, 1934;

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








        ATTEST: Acting Erecutive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


B~ ~ ~o-s .~

      semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicsgoj, 71.Ltnoisj, this14th day of December 1982·

                                C El VED C


                                ~r

                                    ,,

                                        0


                                      i~

                          ' ~Cl, . ~~' i

                                    .G~

                                0Oiiice i