The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John H. Dorsey when award was rendered.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Missouri Pacific Railroad maintains a diesel shop, a spot repair shop, and a rip track, including a large transportation yard at Houston, Texas. This is all located on the property of the Houston Belt & Terminal Railroad. The claimant is employed as a car inspector on the Missouri Pacific Railroad. He was cited for an investigation on November 14, 1967. The investigation was postponed-see Mr. B. w. Wiggans' letter of November 20, 1967.
The claimant was accused of removal of revenue merchandise from the Missouri Pacific property car C&O 26483, without permission on or about November 4, 1967. The matter has been handled up to and including the highest designated officer of the carrier, who has failed to adjust this matter. The claimant was dismissed from the services of the carrier under date of December 19, 1967.
The investigation was first set for November 4, 1967, but it was postponed and was held on Friday, December 8, 1967, and the claimant was dismissed from service on December 19, 1967.
Your will note that the claimant was charged with removing merchandise from car C&O 26483 on or about November 4, 1967. During the investigation particularly in our exceptions contained in the investigation, the carrier did not stay with the caption of the investigation, and of course, this was an un-
Possession of stolen cases of .tea admittedly taken from a car in carrier's yard when considered with the shortage of tea in car C&O 26483 likewise creates an inference the 17 cases of tea were taken from C&O 26483.
Claimant's admission that he took the tea considered with a corresponding shortage in car C&O 26483 is convincing evidence that the tea was taken from that particular car.
The employes apparently are under the false impression that carrier must have an eye witness to thefts before the claimant could be found guilty of taking the tea from the car.
Taking 17 cases of tea from carrier's car is a flagrant display of dishonesty clearly supporting dismissal. Your board has repeatedly upheld the dismissal of employes found guilty of dishonesty, including thefts. See Second Division Awards 3537, Stone; 3590, Carey; 3734, Doyle; 4401, 4407, Williams; 4744, Johnson; 4925, Hall.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that claimant was prejudiced in any way or deprived of a fair and impartial investigation.
Your board has consistently refused to weigh evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses or substitute its judgment for that of the carrier unless its action was clearly arbitrary and capricious.
Carrier's action in this case was fair and impartial and certainly reasonable under the circumstances prevailing.
The claim is without merit and your board is respectfully requested to render a denial award.
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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Under date of November 14, 1967, Claimant was served with the following charges:
vestigation to develop the facts and place responsibility, if any, in connection with your alleged removal of revenue merchandise from Missouri Pacific Property car C&O 26483 without permission on or about November 4th 1967.
Arrange for representative of your choice permitted by the Current Agreement and any witnesses you may desire."
From our review of the record we find and hold that: (1) Claimant was afforded due process; (2) the finding that Claimant was guilty as charged is supported by substantial evidence; and, (3) the discipline imposed was reasonable. We, therefore, are compelled to deny the Claim.