Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of way Employees
 to and

 Dispute Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 -Texas and Louisiana Lines-

 Statement 1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement when it unfairly and without
 of just cause suspended Extra Gang Laborer Thompson from Oc':cber 20, 197b,
 Claim: to Nov:>neer 8, 1976.
 2. Llaimant Thompson to tie paid for all time lost and his record be cleared
 of this charge.
 Findings: The Board finds, after nearing upon the whole record and all evidence,
 that the parties herein are Carrier and employee within the meaning of the
 Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by
 Agreement dated March 23, 19/7, that it has ,jurisdiction of the parties
 and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of the
 hearing held.
 Claimant had been employed as an txtra Gang Laborer some two months, when
 he was suspended 19 days from service, October 20, tnrough November 8,
 1976, by his Division Engineer for violation of Rule M-810 of the Rules
 and Regulations for the maintenance of Way and Structures. Claimant, on
 October 19, 1976, about 12:50 p.m., had refused to return to work after
 lunch as did the other members of his gang. The investigation, thereon,
 which was requested by Claimant, was neld November 4, 1976. Carrier concluded,
 as a result thereof, that Claimant was guilty as charged.
 Rule M-810, in part pertinent here, reads:

          -Employees must .... remain at their post of duty and devote themselves exclusively to their duties during their tour of duty. They must not

                                                PL a I c762,5

          Page t Award No. t9

          absent tnemselves from their employment without proper authority ....


          Claimant was given a fair and impartial hearing. the evidence adduced therein was sufficient in quantatum to support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant had refused to go back to work after lunch. Claimant called several employees as witnesses who testified that Claimant told them that he was sick. Claimant offered no other proof of his alleged illness. Carrier's witnesses, an assistant Koadmaster and the Claimant's Gang Foreman, testified that claimant simply stated that ne was not going back to work and that Claimant never said that he was sick. Carrier chose to accept the testimony of its witnesses as being the more credible. Such is within Carrier's discretionary authority, and is not error.


          The Board finds that the discipline imposed, in the circumstances involved , is considered as being reasonable.


          The clam will tie denied.

Award: Claim denied.
 A. . C n ingham, E ee ember R. w. Hickman, Carrier Member

                            tT. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral member


                            issued at Houston, Texas, May 8, 1976.