Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29009
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29402
 91-3-90-3-451
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Carol J. Zamperini when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

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

1. Carrier violated the effective agreement when, following an investigation on August 28, 1989, it assessed discipline in the form of ten (10) demerits against the record, of Ms. Georgia Ward, without just cause.

 2. Carrier shall now rescind the discipline assessed and shall clear Ms. Ward's record of the charges placed against her."

 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.

In January, 1981, the Carrier established a demerit system based on the concept of progressive discipline. Employees who violated Carrier Rules would be issued demerits based on the following: 1) gravity of the infraction; 2) circumstances surr employee could clear his record of demerits by maintaining a perfect record over one, two, three or four years. If an employee accumulated 100 demerits, he would be subject to dismissal. This policy was published and made known to the employees.

 In the instant case, the Claimant was a Crew Caller on Sunday, July 30, 1989. As such, she was responsible for accepting the calls of employees who called in sick or called to indicate they were reporting for work following an illness. She then called any Extra Board personnel that were necessary to provide a complete complement of workers on the next shift.
 Form 1 Award No. 29009
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29402
 91-3-90-3-451

 On July 31, 1989, two employees, one a regular employee and one an Extra Board employee, reported for the same assignment. This necessitated sending the Extra Board employee home. When the Supervisor asked the regular employee, if he had marked up, he responded that he had called the Claimant the night before to indicate his intention to report for his scheduled assignment.

 As a result of these circumstances, the Claimant was notified to appear for a formal Investigation to be held on August 28, 1989, at the office of the Assistant Superintendent-Administrative, Kirk Yard, Gary Indiana. According to the notice, the Hearing was to determine her responsibility in connection with the charge:

The Investigation was held on August 28, 1989. The Claimant, despite receiving notice of same, was not in attendance. During the Hearing, the Claimant's Supervisor testified about the incident, including his conversation with the regular employee who had advised him that he indeed had called in and talked with the Claimant on Sunday, July 30, 1989, and told her he would be coming to work at 7:00 A.M. the next day. That employee did not testify at the Hearing.

 It was on the basis of this testimony and the Claimant's past record that the Carrier determined her guilty of the charges and assessed her ten (10) demerits.

 The Organization objects to the Carrier's refusal to call the regular employee as a witness at the Investigation. It claims the Supervisor's recanting of the conversation he had with the regular employee was hearsay testimony and therefore invalid.

 The Carrier argues that an Investigation is not a judicial proceeding. The same quantum of proof an employee. Given the Claimant's past performance as a Crew Caller and the gravity of the offense, the ten (10) demerits was reasonable.

 The testimony of the Supervisor while sufficient to prove the Carrier had cause to charge the Claimant and conduct an Investigation, was not reliable to prove her guilty Organization is correct in its assertion that it was denied the right to cross examine the individual who had first hand knowledge of what occurred the night in question. This witness, an employee of the Carrier, was available and should have been called.

 If the witness had been called and his testimony withstood cross examination then it would have been up to the Claimant to refute the evidence presented. Her failure to do so would have settled the matter. Without the regular employees testimony, however, there was nothing for the Claimant to refute except hearsay evidence.
 Form 1 Award No. 29009
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29402
 91-3-90-3-451

 Under the circumstances, this Board believes the Carrier has presented insufficient evidence that th







ATtest: ~~i
 ncy J. D -Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, thi$ 24th day of September 1991.