Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27867
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-27365
 89-3-86-3-796
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.

 (Wayne Callow PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

On the afternoon of November 13, 1985, Carrier's Penn Station Ticket Office General Supervisor received via Company mail several envelopes addressed to Amtrak employees. hand-addressed to the employees and bore in the upper left-hand corner the General Supervisor's business return address. The General Supervisor ascertained that no one in his he therefore opened one of them. Inside each envelope was a two-page unsigned diatribe directed against several incumbent Officers of BRAC (now TCU) by a dissident Organization identified as "The Committee for Fair Trade Unionism."

 The General Supervisor, who had supervised Claimant in the past, thought he recognized the handwriting on the envelope as that of Claimant. He therefore called Claimant into the office for an interview. In the presence of two other Ticket Supervisors, at approximately 5:00 P.M. on November 13, 1985, the General Supervisor presented Claimant with one of the envelopes and asked if he knew anything about it. According to written statements and subsequent testimony from each of the three Carrier witnesses, Claimant admitted that he had reproduced the anti-union documents on a Company machine, stuffed and addressed the Amtrak stationery envelopes, and mailed the material to other employees via Company mail. By the account of these witnesses, Carrier stated that he had done this at the request of one "Danny Carroll,"
 Form 1 Award No. 27867
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-27365
 89-3-86-3-796

 without considering that he might be improperly involving the Carrier in an intra-union dispute. At the conclusion of the interview, the General Supervisor suspended Claimant f the date of November 4, 1985, Claimant was served with the following notice:















At the request of Danny Carroll, Claimant's designated representative, the Hearing twice was rec December 18, 1985. At the Hearing, the three Carrier witnesses testified to the foregoing scenario, but Claimant flatly denied copying or sending the anti-union literature and also denied having admitted same. The Hearing Officer resolved the credibility conflict against Claimant, found him guilty as charged, and Carrier assessed the penalty of dismissal from service. During handling on the prope fifty (50) days' suspension without pay. The Claim for exoneration and restitution was appealed to t
The standards for review of discipline cases by this Board are too well established to require citation: 1) Did the accused employee receive a full and fair Investigation with due Notice of Charges, opportunity to defend and representation?; 2) If so, did the employer show by clear and convincing record evidence that the employee was culpable of the charged misconduct or
 Form 1 Award No. 27867
 Page 3 Docket No. MS-27365
 89-3-86-3-796

 dereliction of duty?; and, 3) If so, was the penalty imposed arbitrary, capricious, discriminato the particular case?

 We find in this record no fatal procedural defect and no deprivation of Claimant's contractual due process rights. The transcribed record of Investigation contains testi rather than Claimant's denials, plainly demonstrates his culpability and admission of culpability. I Board has no basis for reversing Carrier's resolution of the credibility conflict on the property. In addition, Carrier adduced an analysis by a handwriting expert to support its conclusion that Claimant addressed the envelopes. Finally, with respect to penalty, we find no valid grounds for modifying the fifty-day suspension without pay. Not only did Claimant misappropriate Company materials to his own use, but he showed an appalling lack of judgment and sensitivity to Carrier's interests and rights in its relationship with the duly authorized and certified bargaining representative of the clerical employees.




                          By Order of Third Division


                    00,


Attest:
        ancy J a -/Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of May 1989.