PUBLIC LAW BO,'o'D NO. 184h


PARTM 70 THE DISPUTE:
Chicago and North Western Transportation Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
        Chin: of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


          1. The dismissal of Track Supervisor DePaepe was without just and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to the alleged offense (System File D--11-17-157).


2. Track Supervisor DePaepe be reinstated with all rights unimpaired
 and compensated for all time lost because of the violation refezned
 within Part 1 of this claim.
 OPINION OF HOARD:
 This case involves the dismissal from service of Track Supervisor S. D-Paepe following investigation into the facts regarding dine reported by him on his second period Decembers 1975, Time Report. Fbllowing investigation on January 9, 1976, Claimant was advised that he had been dismissed from service'effective January 19, 1976. The instant claim was initiated by the Organization on February 5, 1976, seeking reinstatement of Hr. DePaepe and compensation for all time lost. The claim was denied at several levels of handling on the property and comes to us for disposition.
 - Review of the record, especially the transcript of investigation, reveals that Claimant held the position of Track. Supervisor, headquartered at Des Plaines,, Fllinois, pursuant to Bulletin No. h issued January 15, 1974. Under that bulletin the regular days of assignments are Tuesday to Saturday inclusive, with Sunday and
 Monday rest days. The bulletin stipulates :;« specific daily hours of work but the record establishes beyond cavil that a norm-il work day for the position was eight hours, with a starting time of 7:00 a.m. and quitting time of 3:30 p.m., with thirty minutes off for lunch. In his position as Track Supervisor Claimant maintained his own work time records and reported his time to Payroll on a bi-monthly basis. the instant dispute centers around time claimed by Mr. DePaepe for pay purposes on December 18 and 19, 1975. The undisputed record shows that for December 18, 1975, Claimant submitted a work record showing seven hours' work at his straight time rate. For December 19, 1975, he reported and received pay for eight hours= work at his regular straight time rate. Carrier contends that on both days Claimant knowingly misreported his time and received pay for time not worked.
 The record shows that on December 18, 1975, Claimant had trouble starting his car and his supervisor, Roadmaster R. Verley, sent an Assistant Fbreman to pick Claimant up at his home. They returned and Claimant accordingly reported for work on this date at 8:45 a.m. Claimant went off duty at 3:30 p.m. on December 18, 1975: Thue, not counting his 30-minute lunch break, Claimant performed 6-1/4 hours of work
 for which he claimed seven houzs' pay' On December 19, 1976, Claimant again exper lanced car trouble but finally managed to report for work at 7:40 a.m. He quit that day at approximately 3630 p.m. Accordingly, not counting his 30-minute lunch time, Claimant on December 19, 1975# performed 7 hours and 20 minutes of service for which he claimed eight hours' pay. Having established the foregoing facts, it appears that Carrier has made a prima facie case that Claimant misreported his time on the days in question. The only issues properly joined on the property and argued before us are the Organization's contentions that: (1) Claimant "must have" worked through his lunch
 hour on each of the days in question and accordingly his time reports for each day
 vary only in the amount of ten minutes. From this premise the Organization argues

                            -2-

that the ultimate penalty of dismissal is unreasonable and not warranted for such a minor infraction; and (2 ) arguendo~, the Organization urges that even if Claimant misreported his time to the extent of 40 minutes each day, he was justified in doing so to ''make up" overtime he had worked but not claimed on other occasions. In this latter connection the Organization insists that the record shows Claimants supervisor expressly directed hint to make up overtime in this fashion.
 We have combed the record with extreme care and we find no factual underpinning for the Organization's assertions. Nhether Claimant worked through his lunch hour on the dates in question is purely a matter for speculation and is nowhere in dicated on the record. Nor do we read the record, and especially the transcript of investigation, as establishing that Claimant's supervisor, R.oadmaster Verley, authorized hint to over-report his straight time hours in order to absorb dherwise unreported overtime. Moreover, the payroll report for the second period of December, 1975, belies his contention in that it shows substantial overtime reported by Claimant. In all the facts and, circumstances, we find that Carrier's conclusion that Claimant. knowingly misreported his hours worked on December 18 and 19, 1975, is founded in c-a'-:tantial record evidence. We find no basis herein upon which to disturb Carrier's assessment of discipline. AccordirMays the claim must be denied.
Public Law Hoard No. 1844, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows
 1. That the Carrier end Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act;

        2. that the Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein;


        3. that the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD
The claim is denied.

 0. M. (/Z,7~ 1-~e- ~L "-t
    F3erge, EmpIoyee ember


Dated;

 Da,rxa ~.~.~". schen, Ch.

I ~k)~ 4&mg~j2


R. W.Schmiege, Carrier Mem r