(Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.)
 `t

























                · September 10, 1971.


    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. i

                                                                  i


    This Division of the Adjubtment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


            Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing tt«ereori.


                                                                  I.

                                                  l


                                                    f 1':~rm 1Award No. 6532

                                                          i

PH ge 2 Docket No. 6334

                                                              2-S B-CM-' 7 3 i


        Claimants were charged with:


            Taking without authority and removing by truck, new lumber, property of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, For use in con: truction of new Stab-Station west oC Bethlehem Steel orporation 48"! '4il1 Hot Bed a s listed below:

                                                              s

              f

              19 pieces of 2" x 4" x 16'

              3 pieces o F 2" x 12'' x 16'

              4 pieces of i" x 6" x 16'

              3 pieces of 4" x 4" x 16'

              2 piece:: of 4" x 4" x 14'

              1 piece of 4" x 4" x 12'


            at about 9:00 A.M. on ~1uly 25, 1971 while assigned as Carmen, respectively, on 7:30 AM t o 3:30 PM shift, July 25, 1.971.


Claimants were afforded a hearing on the chare September 10, 1171 at which they were present, duly represented, and witnesses: were subject to crossexamination.

 The record o l' said hearing fully established that Claimants re!!ioved from premises of the Carrier's parent company the merchandise referred to, without ,
 authority from anyone authorized to give same. It must therefore be held that '.
 the charge was proved with probative evidence. Petitioner's contention that the
 charge ..;as not "precise" lacks merit and is rejected.

 Claimants are subject to the basic concept set forth in Awards of-' this Board too numerous to cite that it is incumbent upon Carriers and their employes to protect the property of those who utilize their services. It is impossible to adhere to Petitioner's view that claimants did no wrong in that they took merchandise belonging to a consignee of the Carcier to allegedly be used for the advantage and eventual enjoyment of Carrier's employes, albeit on Carrier's premises. Claimants could have easily ascertained whether she lumber was avail.able for purposes they claimed. Their unilateral action was inconsistent with their employment status.

 In Award 6368, this Board eruinciated the limitations of its authority relative to discipline cases as follows:

        "Our function, ... is to review the record, ascertain whether the Controlling Agreement had been cimplied with; the Claimants were afforded dire process; there was substantial evidence to sustain a finding of just and sufficient cause for the discipline imposed; and that the action taken by Carrier was riot arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable."

    T


Form 1 Award No. 6532
 Page 3 Docket No. 6334
 2-S B-CM-' 7 3 j
 i
 In Award 6196, we stated
 "In jndging the above, mindful that the Carrier has
 the burden of proving its charge and of showing its
 conduct and decision were not unreasonable, the
 Board :,rill not go beyond the record developed a t the .',
 Carrier's investigation."

 Claimant Cochran herein had shortly prior to the incident herein involved, been granted reinstatement on a leniency basis, after intervention in his behalf by his Organization, following his discharge in September 1968 for feloniously stealing Carrier's property. Petitioner prevailed upon Carrier to afford him another chance and Claimant signed a statement that he would "not comit another act of. misconduct in the future". His July 25, 1971 conduct was clearly inconsistent with the understanding and agreement which resulted in his reinstatement effective September 30, 1968.

 This Board has stated and reiterated in Award 6196 (Quinn), the following:

        "This Board does not presume to substitute its judgment for that of a Carrier and reverse or modify Carrier's

        disciplinary decision unless the Carrier is shown to i

        have acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious,

        or discriminatory manner, amounting to abuse of

        discretion. A Carrier's disciplinary decision is

        unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory ...

        when the degree of discipline is not reasonably related

        to the seriousness of the proven offense." Award 6198

        (See also Awards 4195, 4098, 4000, and 3874.)


Based upon the record, Carrier satisfied the criteria for sustaining the discipline imposed upon claimants.

                        A 4d A R D


        Claim denied.


                                  NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BARD By Order of Second Division I i


Attest:
        ,~ .G-La~.~- _

        Executive Secretary


-)ated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of June, 1973.
                                                              I