Upon the whole--record, .after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as -.amended, .and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has Jurisdiction of thf parties and the subject matter.
Claimant herein, a Trackman -was charged- with absence- without proper, authority on January 20, 1986_. Following an investigation, he was assessed10 demerits and, having accumulated 6-0 demerits by this .assessment, was discharged from Carrier'-s -service,
the day involved. He alleged that a Foreman who had subsequently been replaced had granted him permission to be off on the day in question. Approximately five days prior to his absence, however, a new Foreman took oven as his direct Supervisor. He never discussed his impending absence with that Supervisor. Furthermore, he claimed that he called in on the day in question and discussed his -impending absence in order to see a physician with the Assistant Division Engineer who, according to Claimant's testimony, promised to report the matterto his gang. The Assistant °ngineer's testimony, however, was that he did not give
permission to Claimant to be absent on that day and there was nc communication to the gang by that Carrier official.
Essentially, the matter then in this dispute comes down to the question of credibility. If Claimant's position is correct, lie had permission to be absent on the day and should not have been assessed the demerits and, therefore, should not have been discharged. However, the converse also is true. It has long been held and accepted by all that Boards such as this can make no determination with respect to such matters as credibility. It is cur purview merely to interprete the Agreement in the light of facts which are presented. In this instance, the Hearing Officer properly made a credibility finding and did not credit Claimant's testimony. He found, therefore, that the facts belied the Claimant's .assertion that he had permission to be off on that particular day. For that reason, the facts to be determined and. if evaluated by this Board do not support Claimant's position, the claim therefore must be denied since Claimant did not have permission to be -off on the day. The number- of demerits accumulated was sufficient to cause his termination.