Form 1. ATATIOW -1h RAILROAD ADJiTSTi~E,:11T BOARD Award Po. 781+
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7745
2-scL-F,w- '79

The Second Divs. sion. consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee George S. Roahi,~ when awara was rendered.

( System Federation- No.. ~.2, Railway Employes'

Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0.

Fa.rties to P:isrute : ( (Electrical Workers)

( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Em byes:

l. That the Seaboard Coast Line unjustly, improperly, and VTithoat su-

pporting the burden of proof, dismissed Electrician D. L . Lush

from service beginning I;oveymbex 16, 176.

2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to remove this unjust, and improper dismissal from the service record of Claimant and compensate :aim for all vine lost in connection therewith, beginning 1Tove_:icor 1_6, _,~(o ti~xo~u~h and includinr; such date as he is properly restored to the ::ex va.co o~' the Carrier.

3. In addition, that C1ail::ant be reinstated with a.1.1 seniority rights, vacation rights and privileges, insurance rights and, protection as wall as a7..1 other conr.ensation lost as a result of this improper and unjust/ dismissal . ~

Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidences finds that

The carrier or ca:.·xiexs and the e:nploye ox employes involved in this dispute axe respectively carrier and. employ e within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved dune 21, 1934.

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

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at/ hearing -thereon.

An investigative hearing, was held on Oct6hc.r 27, 1976 to determine claimant's cesponsibility in co;me.c~'tion ZTith the unauthorized ruxnoval of iteu_a from Carrier's Hialeah, Florida facility. The Imaria:; officer found Claimant guilty of the charged specifications and he was subsequently apprised by letter dared November 16, 1976 that he was dismissed from service.
Foam 1 Award No. 781+
Page 2 Docket IJO. '~(745
2-scL.-n',.-179

In his defence, Claimant ar;aes that Carrier faa led to meet its
required proof burden by its inability to develop clearly that he unlaw
fully removed said items from Carrier's property and its failure to provide
._
a fair hearing consistent with A,~reement I;ule 32. lie asserts that Carrier
additionally imposed differential punishment penalties on the other employees
implicated in the investigation.

Carrier con'terzd.u that clair:fanv was not only ,pxovrided with a fair and

iinpa._r-tia1. hearing. wi.-tti.'Ln the definitional requirements of Rule 32; but also
was proven guilty of the charges by a preponderance of solid probative
evidence. It argues that clairaamt's atte:ugt to analo~-,ize the particulars
of his situation V'1't'1 other imJ:'licated e°_v:;nllo,,7ees fails to provide comEarab-le
fact specifics. 1-t concluded that claimant's incriminating admissions _
were clisposit'_ve of tire z_ssize.

This Board has caxel`'uL7_y reviewed the record to determine whether ox

not clai:i:~.!'1t was afl:0?^dCd a fair and 1T":paY"t7_a.L C1ca.L'?_nF;. We find nothing 1.Y1
the lnVB:;t1c ztiVe 'cs,-:,.n:sc:x'i,pt t1-_E.t ~-ould indicate tie presence of bia2,
prejudice of selective discip7_ina,r^,; tzC:atr::eat. C'!_a:i:n:?,,nt s~;as ;?rovide;i. a
discipLinaz"y heaping that sclaa):'ely co::~i?? i cd s';.ith the r.,L,,.n--'--fest intent of
Rule 3?_ (Supra) and ~ ~ .''h> ' ·, r·gen T..e cannot, uthese
r7 c._~ i:a,~ found guilty of _ ~ cu_ ....,. We ,.
circumstances, modify or reverse, -in the absence of palpable error o:.^
explicit capriciousnecs, Carrier's decision to terminate claimant's
employment. He was fU'u'ld. guilty of a VE.'i'~,~ serious Chax'F;E, that was supported
by the evidence and we cannot eylect Carrier to countenance lightly this typo
of deportment.

Accordingly, based on the record and on our consistent application of the decisional principle, "that an employer is entitled to expect its employees to be honest" (See Second Division Award TV, we will deny the claims

Claim denied. E"

RAILROAD ADJ~JSIM~I 1 BOI?IR)

By Order of Second Division

Attest: 1'iXeL"utive S2Cx'E3'tax;rr
National Railroad Adjustment Board

,~xs_._.

~u~
..-'

~.,.fi x ·::~ ~` ~r

B
ir ~,, ·'' z" t'p s.~a,~,^ ~ R ~r ^"'~:Tc° 9 ~_ _~r ~ >m_ ^ . ~_~ _.

",Los F,:ilu..!' 1_ UA~_~ '. .'.S C t .y~^ __-' .1'?. i:l`'LI i';:; O.L'l i, . ...~ :i .L.`p"t`aI1a,

U t

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of Ja,tltrWry, 1979.