Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28762
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28780
 91-3-89-3-173
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the


On behalf of H. L. Williams, for payment of compensation equivalent to 90 days pay at his pro-rata rate of pay, account of the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly, the Discipline rule when it did not give him a fair and impartial hearing and assessed him with excessive discipline." Carrier file 15-47 (88-31).

 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 Claimant was charged with unauthorized absence on February 18 and 19, 1988, and with claiming pay for both of those days, thus falsifying his time sheets. He was also charged with claiming RUIA sick benefits during the sixty day period he was suspended from service for another disciplinary violation, beginning Februar 4, 1988, Claimant was found to be guilty of claiming time and wages on the payroll for work not performed on Februajy 18 and 19 and was assessed a ninety day suspension in lieu of dismissal, the suspension to be served from April 22 to July 20, 1988.

 The Organization argues that Claimant was not given a fair Investigation and further was not app Organization asserts that Claimant did not receive adequate training in making out his time sheet and, further, attempted to make restitution when he discovered the overpayment of excessive.
 Form 1 Award No. 28762
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28780
 91-3-89-3-173

 Carrier asserts that Claimant received a fair Investigation and that he was properly found guilty of the particular charge. Carrier states that Claimant was well aware of how to properly adjust his time sheet and had done so is the past. Carrier also notes that Claimant was off duty due to a medical problem (allegedly wo and for that reason lost no time as a result of the 90-day suspension in lieu of dismissal to be served from April 22 through July 20, 1988.

 An examination of the transcript of the Investigation in this matter does not support the Organization's position. The Board must conclude that Claimant was given a fair Investigation. With respect to the evidence, there is no question but that Carrier was correct in its conclusions with regard to Claimant's actions in claiming pay for time not worked. It has long been held that such an act is a serious instance of dishonesty warranting dismissal (see for example Second Division Awards 7673 and 8791). In this case not only was the ninety day suspension lenient under the circumstances, but, additionally, it resulted in no loss of pay for Claimant due to his medical leave of absence during the suspension period. Thus, the Claim must be denied.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      'Nancy J. er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th da'yoof April 1991.