PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The dismissal of Trackman E. Gaulman for alleged violation of 'General Rule 16' was without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of unproven charges (System File C-4(13)-EG/l2-39(80-48) G).

 (2) Trackman E. Gaulman shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record be cleared and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a trackman. At the
 time of the occurrence giving rise to the claim herein, he
 was assigned to Section Force 8145 in Hialeah, Florida, which force, along with
 other forces, was rebuilding a street crossing in the Hialeah area. The Carrier
 states that the crossing involved was heavily travelled, necessitating that the
 work be performed at night and on week ends. Claimant's force, under the
 supervision of Foreman D. E. Wine and Roadmaster L. E. Wainwright, reported at
 12 midnight, Friday, March 14, 1980, and was to work through Saturday, March 15.

 The Carrier contends that about 1:00 A.M., March 15, Claimant was observed by the Foreman, the Roadmaster, and the Special Agent to be in an abnormal condition. He was relieved from duty about 2:00 A.M. by the Roadmaster, and on March 21, 1980, he was charged wish violation of General Rule 16 of the Safety Rules for Engineering and Maintenance of Way Employes concerning the use of intoxicants, drugs or anything that may impair senses or alertness. Investigation was conducted on April 9, 1980, and Claimant was dismissed from service effective April 29, 1980.

 General Rule 16 of the Safety Rules for Engineering and Maintenance of Way Employes reads:

A copy of the transcript of the investigation has been made a part of the record. Upon review of the transcript, the Board finds that none of Claimant's substantive procedural rights was violated. The investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Claimant was present throughout the investigation and was represented. While there was some question as to when the Claimant received the letter of charge, he stated at the beginning of the investigation that he was ready to proceed.


In the investigation the Roadmaster, the Foreman and the Special Agent each stated that he smelled alcohol on Claimant's breath, and that Claimant's actions were not normal. The Claimant denied that he had been drinking. Two witnesses were present in his behalf. One witness stated that Claimant did not appear to be under the influence of intoxicants. The other witness was indefinite, stating that he really could not say whether Claimant was drinking.

 There were conflicts in the evidence presented at the investigation. However, it is well settled that this Board will not weigh evidence, attempt to resolve conflicts therein, or pass upon the credibility of witnesses. Such functions are reserved to the hearing officer.

 There was substantial evidence presented at the investigation in support of the charge against Claimant. The disci?line imposed was not arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith. The claim will be denied.

        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 and Employes within the meanihg of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 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: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board ~` (L
 By Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant C~o~o off.

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of April 1983.