PARTIES The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO
 DISPUTE and
 The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company

 STATEMENT 1. The Carriers decision to assess Claimant
 OF CLAIM Arthur Sanders twenty (20) demerits after
 investigation August 14, 1986, was unjust.
 2. Accordingly, the Carrier should now be re
 quired to expunge twenty (20) demerits from
 Claimant's record, reimbursing him for all
 wage loss and expenses incurred as a result
 of attending the investigation on August 14,
 1986_ because a review of the investigation
 transcript reveals that substantial evidence
 was not introduced that indicates Claimant
 is guilty of violation of the rules he was
 he was charged with in the Notice of Inves
 tigation.
 FINDINGS

 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties herein are the Carrier and the Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated November 26, 1985, and has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
          · · yoa~ - 3 ~


                          -2-


Claimant was employed by the carrier as a trackman with the tie gang. On July 17, 1986, a controversy erupted between Claimant and two of his supervisors. The incidents were unrelated, and the Claimant was charged with the violation of two rules in connection therewith. He received twenty demerits following a formal Investigation which was held onAugust 14, 1986.


According to the testimony adduced at the Investigation, student Foreman Nulick instructed Claimant to work faster and to utilize the proper tools, but Claimant failed to do so. He asserted that the Claimant was delaying the operation. Claimant and a co-worker testified thhat Claimant was working properly, and that the Student Foreman was in error. They testified that the principal objection of the Student Foreman was that Claimant was using his foot to insert plates, rather than the bar designed for that purpose. However, according to their testimony, the student foreman himself was unable to insert the plate using the bar, and this testimony was not refuted during the investigation. Therefore, the Board finds that insufficient evidence was adduced to find the Claimant guilty of that charge.

With respect to the second charge? Foreman Looman testified that he instructed the gang to work faster, and quit talking, and then he walked away. However, after walking approximately 132 feet, he turned, and observed the following:


            . . ~ At that particular point, I looked up, he (the Claimant) had his buttocks in the air, with his pants pulled down to his ankles and was making an obscene gesture at me.


The Foreman further testified that Claimant was performing this maneuver "about a foot and a half, two feet off the track." The Claimant explains that he was relieving himself far to the side of the track, and meant no disrespect to the Foreman. There is a conflict in evidence.


The Board has often held that conflicts in testimony may best be resolved by the hearing officer, because he may observe the demeanor of the witnesses, and better determine their credibility. It is clear that he chose to believe the Foreman in this case, and absent a showing of bad faith, it is his prerogative. There is no such showing here, so we will support his conclusion.

Foal-3 6


In view of the serious nature of the offense, the discipline of
 twenty demerits was not excessive. Foremen and other supervisors
 must be given basic respect if they are to discharge their duties
 as required by the Carrier. While there is some latitude given
 in track gangs, the Claimant's conduct clearly surpassed reason
 able bounds. The Claimant was guilty, and the discipline was
 warranted.

 AWARD
Claim denied.

 K I *' / 2,
 C. F. oos ,

 L. L. Pope, Carrier Member

 Employee Mem er

 RK&~H~I
      /CoVnson, chairman

nd N tral Member

 Dated: ZO I`(