PARTIES Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
 to -and-
 DISPUTE: Consolidated Rail Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:













FINDINGS: On. March 7, 1992, the Claimant was the Engineer on a yard assignment operating Engine unit No. 9563. The Terminal Superintendent, while positioned in the yard tower, testified at the hearing held in this matter that he observed the Claimant slumped down in the seat of his locomotive with both of his feet placed on the fire wall/instrument panel. He, therefore, left the yard tower, went to the Claimant's engine and boarded it. At that time, he saw the Claimant remove his grip from the 'top-of the "dead-man" pedal.
 The Claimant, at the investigation, denied the accusation of the Terminal Superintendent. =n this respect, he testified that the only time that he had both of his feet up on the fire wall was after he had stopped his engine. He further testifed that he had the independent brake on in full service (which, he claimed, nullifed the dead-man) he had both feet up on the window. Consequently, because there were no other witnesses who observed the Claimant operating his
 SBA No. 894 C-1587/A-1587
 Page 2

 engine at the time when the Terminal Superintendent allegedly observed him with his feet on the fire wall, the Carrier was confronted with a basic credibility question.
 It is clear that if the Claimant had both of his feet on the locomotive's front fire wall, as claimed by the Superintendent, the engine could not continue to move without some object holding down the''dead-man" safety device. However, the Claimant, as noted here, denies this assertion.
 The Board recognizes that the Carrier has the basic right to resolve questions of credibility in discipline disputes. However, these determinations must be based on substantial evidence. This has been:-defined-as'"suah""rel:evant evidence as a reasonable man might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (Consolidated"Edison Company vs. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197,229).
 We find that the Carrier's action is not supported by substantial evidence. There are many unanswered questions that were not pursued at the Carrier's hearing. For example: Could the Superintendent have seen the Claimant's feet from his vantage point if the Claimant was in a reclined position? Moreover, the Superintendent testified that he did not see the "dead-man" pedal blocked while the engine was' moving. He did testify that he saw a corner of the Claimant's bag on the corner of the pedal when he boarded the engine. However, this does not show that the bag was' there during the engine's movement. Nor does-it--answer the question of whether the-bag was heavy enough to depress the pedal.
 In summary, the Board finds that the record lacks substaHtial evidence to support the Carrier's action. Accordingly, the claim is sustained.

 AWARD



C. oiri. c ehty'Muessig ~
 Carrier Member Neutral Member /

 Dated:

 W. C. Kr 4n, J~Organization Merd6er