Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27927
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-28072
 89-3-87-3-678
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Paul C. Carter when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

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

CLAIM NO. 1:



CLAIM NO. 2:



CLAIM NO. 3:



In accordance with Circular No. 1 of October 10, 1934, as amended, which was issued by the Board, the claims presented have been combined into one submission. Claims 1 and 2 are arising from alleged incidents and investigated on June 27 and July 24, 1986, respectively; Claim No. 3 protests the discharge of T. H. Nelson which resulted from investigation h Form 1 Award No. 27927
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-28072
 89-3-88-3-678
 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.

The docket herein consists of three disputes handled separately on the property and combined into one submission to the Board, resulting in a rather voluminous record. At the time of the occurrences giving rise to the disputes herein, Claimant, with seniority date of September 27, 1973, was assigned to a Rate Clerk position in Carrier's Customer Service Center, Chicago, Illinois.

 Claim No. 1 involves 20 demerits assessed against Claimant's record following a formal Investigation conducted on June 27, 1986, in which Claimant was charged with allegedly being asleep on duty and indifference to duty on June 5, 1986. A copy of the transcript of the Investigation conducted on June 27, 1986, has been made a part of the record. Upon review, we find that none of Claimant's Agreement rights was violated. There was substantial evidence from two witnesses in the Investigation that Claimant was asleep while on duty at approximately 11:30 A.M. on June 5, 1986. Sleeping on duty is considered a serious offense, often resulting in dismissal from service. The discipline assessed of twenty demerits was certainly not excessive or an abuse of discretion. The contention th Claim No. 1 will be denied.

 Claim No. 2 involves 30 demerits assessed against Claimant's record following an Investigation conducted on July 24, 1986, in which Claimant was charged with allegedly being insubordinate, quarrelsome, and vicious to the Office Manager at 7:15 A.M., on July 11, 1986, in the use of profane language during a telephone conversation. A copy of the transcript of the Investigation conducted on July 24, find that the Investigation was properly conducted and that none of Claimant's Agreement rights was violated. The Claimant, the Office Manager, and Carrier's Regional Manager of C In the Investigation some question was raised by Claimant's representative as to the order in which witnesses would testify. The Board has been cited no rule on this issue and, in the absence of a rule, we consider that in onproperty disciplinary hearin determine the order in which witnesses will testify. It has been held in numerous Awards that on-property disciplinary hearings are not court proceedings; that strict rules the same. There must be substantial evidence in support of the charge. The "substantial evidence" rule was set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States as:
 Form 1 Award No. 27927
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-28072
 89-3-88-3-678

We have reviewed the evidence adduced at the Investigation of July 24, 1986, and find substantial evidence by Carrier's Office Manager and the Regional Manager of Customer Service in support of the charge against the Claimant. There were conflicts between the testimony of Claimant and the other witnesses. 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.

 On our review of the record we find no proper basis to disturb the discipline imposed of 30 demerits. Claim No. 2 will be denied.

 Claim No. 3 involves the dismissal of Claimant from service on August 18, 1986, following a formal Investigation conducted on July 25, 1986, in which Claimant was charged with the misuse of Carrier telephones in making personal long distance calls at Carrier expense on July 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17, 1986, and failure to follow instructions on personal inbound calls that he received on July 8, 9, 14, 15, and 17, 1986, at Carrier expense. We have reviewed the transcript of the investigation conducted on July 25, 1986, and find substantial evidence in support of the charges against the Claimant. The record is clear that Claimant did use Carrier telephones in violation of instructions and without permission of supervisory personnel. The record also shows that Claimant had previously been cautioned or warned concerning unauthorized and improper use warranted and, considering Claimant's prior disciplinary record, dismissal from service was warranted. Claim No. 3 will be denied.

 The denial of Claim No. 3 actually results in Claim Nos. 1 and 2 being moot, but as the claims were handled separately on the property, we consider it proper to decide them separately at this level.




                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Nancy J. D ol~'- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of June 1989.