SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
 Award No. 24
 Docket No. 28
 PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO a '
 DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Crranspartation Compsny
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
 thst.:



FINDINGS:

 This Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds end holds that the employes and the Carrier involved, are respectively employes and Carrier within thn meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over--the dispute herein.

 Claimant was a surfacing Rang foreman. At about 9:45 A.M., May 1.1, 1983. Carrier's Assistant Engineer was eperatina_ his hyrail vehicle toward the point where claimant was working. Accordintr to the Assistant Enzineer, as he aDZroached claimant he observed him lying in the track on his back, with his head on one rail, his feet propped ua on the other, and looking stra-_zht uD toward the sky. On May 12, 1983, claimant was notified to annear for a formal investigation scheduled for 10:30 AM, May 16, 1983, on the charze:.

The investigation was rescheduled fcr''10:30 AM, May 25, 1983. A copy of the transcrint-of the investiaation has been msde a part of the record. Claimant was present throughout the investigation and was represented.

 . In the investi?ation, the Assistant Engineer testified as to his observation of claim-_nt about R:LL5 AM, August 11, 1983, lvinrz on his back with his head on one rail, his feet on the other-, with his face pointed toward the sky, and thpt hewas doing nothing.

Claimant denied that he wan in the-nosition described by the Assistant Engineer; that he was not lying on his back, but was between the tracks semi-reclined, eyeballing the rail with the the use of a laser buaay.

 There was direct conflict between the testimony of the clpimant and the Assistant Engineer. No other ritnesses were present at the investigation. It is well settled that a Board of this nature may not properly weigh evidence, attempt to resolve conflicts therein, or pass upon the credibility of witnesses. Such functions are reserved to the hearing officer. Neither may the Board uroDerly reverse the Cerrier's decision simrly because of conflicts in testimony. On May 27, 1983, claimant was as=eased disciDlint of thirty days suspension.

 In the anneal on the Dronerty and in its submission, the Orzanization comniains of the cor_duct of the hearing officer in recessing the investigation and allegedly conferring with the Assistpnt Enzineer. If exceptions are to be taken as to t%e manner-in which an investigation is conducted, such exceptions must be taken during the course of the investigation; oth=erwise, they are deemed waived.

 Complaint was also made in the anneal on the property, ~nd continued beforethe Board because a Mr. Hamilton, who was accnmuanying the Assistant Engineer when the latter observed claimant, was not Dresent at the investixation. The record does not show that claimant or his reuresentative reauested the presence of Hamilton at the investi;cation, or th--^t t!,e investiastion be recessed to obtain his testimony. The ob3ection on anneal conaernina the absence of Hamilton from the investigation came too late.

 In a situation such as the one before us, we consider that the Ca rrier was not foreclosed from relying on the Assists nt Engineer's testimony simrlv because it was not corroborated by the testimony of another individual.

        Claim denied.


                      Chairman, Neutral Member-


harrier Member Labor Membe

 Dated: .41(~, /7/
      .r