PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The ten (10) days of suspension imposed upon B&B Foreman Roger L. Fraley for alleged 'responsibility in connection with leaving the job site prior to end of tour of duty and, thereby, falsifying time sheets for approximately two hours for yourself and subordinates at Newport, Kentucky on September 11, 1980' was without just and sufficient cause, unwarranted, and on the basis of unproven charges (System File C-D-1020/M-2917).

 (2) The claimant's record shall be cleared and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: An investigation was held on October 8, 1980 to determine
 whether Claimant left the job situs prior to the end of his tour of duty on September 11, 1980 and falsified time sheets for himself and his subordinates. He was working as the Acting Foreman on B&B Force 1503 with assigne,l :cork hours of 7:00 A. M. to 4:30 P.M. at the time the asserted occurred. Based upon the investigative record, Carrier concluded that he had falsified the time sheets as charged and suspended him from service for ten (10) days. Said suspension ran from November 3, 1980 through November 14, 1980.

 In defense of his position, Claimant contends that it was his understanding that anytime he worked o week in lieu of overtime payment. He avers that Supervisor Julian Foster told him on September 11, 1980 to continue the practice when he called this official to report an accident, and argues that he had no intention of defrauding Carrier. He asserts that he entered the time forms in a manner consistent with past practice and thus, his actions were not improper.

 Carrier contends that no amendments were made to the time forms to reflect that Force 1503 was leaving early on September 11th and as such, it was compelled to pay the affected employes for the entire day. It asserts that while Claimant noted that it was the practice for employes to take time off for overtime work, he also acknowledged that it had not been formally approved as practice. It avers that the administrative records do not show that he was given permission by Supervisor Foster to continue the alleged practice since records do not show that he called this official to report a purported accident. It argues that his own admission that he left at 2:15 P.M. is dispositive proof that he falsified the time sheets and discipline was appropriate under these pointed circumstances.

i


no evidence that Claimant was told by Supervisor Foster to continue the alleged practice of working a make up time schedule or any evidence that he communicated with this official on September 11, 1980. We do find that he admitted he was responsible for keeping records and making the prescribed reports for employes under his charge, and importantly that the make up schedule was not approved. In fact, he admitted at the investigative hearing that he had not received a letter approving this type of work schedule.

 In light of these admissions, which indicate that he was not permitted to work a make up time schedule on September 11, 1980, we are compelled by the evidence of record to affirm Carrier's disciplinary determination. In Third Division Award No. 20182, which conceptually parallels this case, we held in pertinent part that:

The judicial reasoning of this decision Award is controlling. We will deny the claim.



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 the dispute involved herein; and



        Claim denied.

                            i~

                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        Attest: Acting Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


y
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

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