(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEKKRT CF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Assistant Track Foreman S. A. Harrison for alleged violation of Rules 'N' and '0' was without Just and sufficient cause and unwarranted.

 (2) Tie claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be caapensated for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION CF BOARD: Prior to his dismissal, claimant, with about 8-1/2 years
 of service, was employed as Assistant Track Foreman, with asslansi hooey 8:OQ am,to 4:00 p.m. Order Pay*

 On August 22, 1980, claimant obtained permission to absent himself fray duty at 12:00 noon. On August 28, 1980, he was instructed to attend an investigation on September 17, 1980, an the charge:



The investigation was held an scheduled, following which claimant was notified on September 22, 1980, of his dismissal from service. A copy of the transcript of the investigation has been made a part of the record. We have reviewed the transcript of the investigation and find that the Investigation was conducted i















In the investigation it was developed by testiaox~y of the Track Supervisor and claimant's foreman that claimant had permission to leave at noon. It was also developed, by testimony of an Mavestigator for the Carrier, that claimant was seen leaving the property, by climbing over a 10-foot fence, at about 11:20 or 11:22 a.m. Claimant had left the gang, saying that he was going to the bathroom about 11:13 car 11:15 &one He did not report back to his farenan and, as previously stated, was observed climbing over the 10-f about 11:20 or 11:22 am. Claimant testified that when he was in the bathroaa at 11:40 a.m. he decided to take his 20-minute lunch period, which would cover the period to 12:00 noon, however, he did not report back to the forawen. Nis tins report for August 22, 1980, bearing his signature, was introduced in the investigation and shooed work ties 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 20 minutes for lunch frost 12:00 aooa to 12:20 pea. Claimant denied leaving the property about 11:20 or 11:22 a.m., an testified by the carrier's Investigator. He did not deny leaving the premises by climbing over the 10-foot fence, but did dispute the ti's of such occurrence. It is not the function of this Board to weigh evidence, attempt to resolve conflicts therein, or pass upon the credibility of witnesses. Suc Claimant stated that the tins report was a "mistake" on his part. In the opinion of the Bout, claimant's leaving the premises by climbing over the 10-foot fence, throes suspicion on the entire affair.

 Based upon the entire record, the Board finds substantial, evidence was produced at the investigation in support of the charge against claimant, and considering his prior work record, which was far from satisfactory, there
                  Docket Mmber D51-24621


is no proper basis four this Hoard to interfere with the discipline imposed by the Carrier. The introduction of claimant's prior work record is the investigation vas not in violation of the Agreement or prejudicial to claimant.

 FEDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record
        and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Ehtployee within the meaning of the Failway labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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

        That the Agreement eras not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.-


                              1WMRAL EAa.RGAD ANU.STIMT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATM2: Acting Hzreeative Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 R
        --0 ~ 41,,~6a. 2-2L

        osemsrie Brasah - Administrative Assl;tnat


Bated at Chicago, 1111nois, thisIM day of May 1983.