The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John H. Dorsey when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 44, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL - CIO
(CARMEN)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman K. E. McInturff, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, was employed by the Clinchfield Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, on June 18, 1952, as Carman Apprentice, and after having completed his apprenticeship, established seniority as Carman mechanic at Erwin, Tennessee, December 18, 1956. After having served in various offices of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America, he was subsequently elected as General Chairman to represent employes of his Organization on this Carrier, effective January 1, 1966, and served in this capacity until April 27, 1967.
Claimant was regularly assigned on Carrier's Erwin Light Repair Track from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., Tuesday through Saturday, with Sunday and Monday rest days. At approximately 4:15 A.M. on April 20, 1967, Claimant was approached by the Chief Special Agent and two of his assistants, and compelled to accompany them to their office in Carrier's General Office building, where he was detained for questioning until around 9:30 A.M. During this tine, around 5:00 A.M., Claimant was driven to his home by the three Special Agents for the purpose of searching his premises, after which he was returned to their office until being released at approximately 9:30 A.M. Claimant was awakened at his home
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
The Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
There is substantial evidence in the record that Claimant while on duty, for personal purposes, altered and damaged two aluminum cross-bars without Carrier's consent. To this extent we must sustain the finding of guilt as charged.
The record does not contain substantial evidence that Claimant was dishonest. Carrier's loose practices relative to disposition of scrap lumber could be reasonably interpreted as a lack of interest on its part as to the disposition of scrap lumber. A substantial amount of such lumber is abandoned by shippers.
Carrier failed to prove that it was Claimant's intention to remove the two aluminum cross bars, which he had altered and damaged, from Carrier's property without consent. In this, the Carrier engaged in speculation. Speculation is without probative value.
In view of Claimant's long years of service we find that the discipline imposed-dismissal from service was excessive in the light of the limited extent of guilt supported by substantial evidence.
Claim sustained in part and denied in part as set forth in Findings, supra.