Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29146
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29541
 92-3-90-3-484
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The discipline (suspension and demotion) imposed upon Track Foreman R. K. Gray for alleged conduct unbecoming an employe was harsh, unjust and on the basis of unproven charges (System File R-D-5093).

 (2) The Claimant shall have his seniority restored unimpaired as track foreman, foreman inspector, assistant foreman and assistant foreman inspector; he shall have the charge leveled against him cleared from his record, and he shall be paid for all wage loss suffered, including the differential loss between his operator's rate of pay."

 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.

 At the time of the dispute at issue, the Claimant was assigned as a track foreman under the supervision of Engineer Track and Structures, at the Potomac Yard. Under date of November 1, 1989, Claimant presented a time Claim to Carrier for 2.67 hours of work performed out of seniority, on October 26, 1989. The Claim read, in pertinent part, as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 29146
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29541
 92-3-90-3-484

 Carrier denied the time Claim on the basis that it had no knowledge of the work claimed having been done, to wit, removing a skate from No. 48 track, on October 26, 1989.

 In response, Claimant submitted to Carrier a statement, dated December 1, 1989, in which a fellow employee, Mr. Raymond Black, allegedly testified to having performed the disputed work. The signature "Raymond Black" appeared at the bottom of the December 1, 1989 document following the words: "I, Raymond Black, did in fact work the above mentioned job [on October 26, 1989]." Carrier again denied the time Claim, asserting that it still did not have evidence that the work claimed had, in fact, been performed. Moreover, Carrier maintained t Mr. Black's signature.

 On December 13, 1989, Carrier charged the Claimant with "conduct unbecoming an employee", specifical knowledge of the statement and signature of December 1, 1989, attributed to him. Following the Investigation, Claimant was assessed a thirty working day suspension without pay and disqualified as a Foreman, Foreman Inspector, Assistant Foreman and Assistant Foreman Inspector.

 While the issue of whether or not Mr. Black actually performed the work claimed on the day the Claimant alleges he performed it is not clear on this record, it must not cloud the essential issue. Carrier has shown convincingly on this record th typed up and submitted by him as evidence of the legitimacy of his Claim. In fact, Mr. Black has testified without contradiction that the first he was asked about the work on that date was ten minutes before he appeared at the Investigation.

 In light of the foregoing, the Board does not find the discipline assessed to be excessive, arbitrary, or unreasonable. Falsification of a time Claim, in whatever guise, is a serious breach of an employee's duty. Enlisting an unwitting "co-cons Board sees no reason to diminish or overturn Carrier's assessed discipline in this case.






        Attest: fancy J. r -Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1992.