(1) The sixty (60) day suspension and disqualification and loss of foreman's and assistant foreman's seniority assessed M.T. LeSage.for 'your responsibility for your failure to perform the duties of Track Foreman, submission of a false daily work report, failure to

          devote yourself. exclusively to the Company's service,'

          and failure to wear the required safety equipment while

    - on duty and employed the Track Department of the Chicago

          and North Western Transportation Company in Itasca,

          Wisconsin on the dates of August 25, 1983, August 26,

          1983, and September 2, 1983, information which reached

          the Assistant Division Manager-Engineering on September

          7, 1983' was without just and sufficient cause, on the

          basis of unproven charges and in violation of the

          Agreement. [Organization File 7D-4406, Carrier File 81

          84-109-D)


          (2) Claimant M.T. LeSage shall be allowed the remedy' prescribed in Rule 19(d)."


    'FINDINGS:


    This Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds that the employees and the Carrier involved are respectively employees and Carrier within the meaning of.the Railway Labor Act as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction

    over the dispute herein.'


    ' On August 25, 1983, two members of Carrier's Police Department were in Itasca, Wisconsin on a matter unconnected with the instant claim. While there, the Police Department members overheard an employee mention that he intended to purchase beer. The Police Department members consequently performed an Employee Work Performance Audit at Itasca on August 25, 26, and September 2, 1983. As a result of the audit, Claimant was notified to report for investigation, to be conducted on September 15, 1983,

    ` of the charge as set out in the Statement of Claim above., After two postponements, the investigation was conducted on November ' 10, 1983. A copy of the transcript has been made a part of the record. We find that the investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.


    The organization contends that Rule 19(a) provides that prior to an investigatory hearing, an employee must "be notified in writing of the precise charge against him." The charge in

                                          S~- day-~ ~S


this case was vague and equivocal; the Carrier therefore violated
 Rule 19(a). Finally, the organization asserts that the Carrier.
 a failed to prove the charges; the special agents' reports were
 based on assumptions, conjecture, and falsehood.
 The Carrier contends that the record evidence proves .
 that charges against the Claimant. The Carrier states that it
 has a right. to expect its employees to put in a full day's work;
 in the past, it has disciplined employees who were found guilty
 of similar offenses. The Carrier also states that the Claimant,
 as a foreman, must bear special responsibility in ensuring
 compliance with safety rules; the Claimant therefore was properly
 subject to greater discipline for knowingly permitting safety
 violations. The Carrier maintains that the charges against the
 Claimant were sufficient to allow the Claimant to prepare a
 defense. Finally, the Carrier contends that it was neither
 arbitrary nor unreasonable in its assessment of discipline in
 this case.
 This Board has reviewed the lengthy transcript and
 other evidence in the record, and it, finds that the charges
 against the Claimant were specific enough to put the Claimant on
 notice of the charges against him, as well as to enable him to
 prepare a defense to those charges. Although the charges
 included some language that may not -have specifically related to
 the action or inaction of each individual Claimant (such as the
 failure to perform duties of track foreman could not have
 related to the non-foreman Claimants involved in the same
 incident), this Board finds that the charges did include specific
 language concerning failure to wear required safety equipment
 while on duty and failure to devote oneself exclusively to the
 Carrier's service, which was enough to provide the requisite
 notice to each Claimant as to the charges against him. Since
 there was evidence of those latter types of wrongdoing by the
 Claimant, this Board must find that the notice and charges were
 sufficient and in compliance with the rules.
 A review of the transcript provides ample evidence that
 the Claimant failed to wear the required safety equipment and
 wasted an inordinate amount of time while on duty. The Carrier's
 police kept lengthy time logs documenting the activities of the
 Claimant, and those ldgs, which were basically unrebutted,
 clearly demonstrated the Claimant's failure to devote himself to
 the Carrier's service on the days in question, as well as his
 failure to wear the required safety helmet. Based on this clear
 and convincing and unrebutted evidence, we must find that there
 was a substantial basis for the Cartier to take disciplinary
 action against the Claimant.
 Once this Board has determined that a carrier has a
 substantial basis in the record to impose discipline, we must
 then turn our attention to the severity of the discipline
 imposed. 'It is fundamental that we do not second-guess a carrier
 as to the severity of discipline unless the action taken by a
 carrier is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. In this case,
 2
 the Claimant received a sixty-day disciplinary suspension and disqualification and loss of foreman's and assistant foreman's, seniority for the wrongdoing. This Board has reviewed the nature of the offenses for which the Claimant has been found guilty,'as well as the Claimant's previous employment record, and based upon that analysis, we cannot find that the action taken by the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Hence, the discipline shall stand.

 AWARD:

          Claim denied.


                        ~- y~_

      Chairman, Neutral Membei

      .cr~ -C

      rriek Member Labor Member


Date:/~JM
3