Form 1 NATIONAL .RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8436
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8270
2-CR-FO-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. haRocco when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 1, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of Z. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)




Dispute: Claim of Employes:



That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to make the aforementioned E. P. Gmez whole by restoring him to Carrier's service with seniority rights unimpaired, plus restoration of all holidays, vacation, health and welfare benefits, pass privileges and all other rights, benefits and/or privileges that he is entitled to under rules, agreements, custom or law, and compensated for all lost wages and, in addition, the amount of 6% annual interest on such lost wages.

Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and a]-IL 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 T`une 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdi:tion over the dispute involved herein.



Claimant, a laborer, in the employ of the carrier for 19 years was charged with the unauthorized possession, signing and cashing of a carrier payroll check made payable to a fellow employe in 1977. Claimant was suspended from service on January 23, 1978 pending a trial which was duly held on January 27, 1978. On February 21, 1978, Claimant was discharged.

The underlying facts are undisputed. Claimant obtained possession of a carrier payroll draft made payable to a fellow employe. At a currency exchange, the claimant endorsed the check by forging the signature of his fellow employe. In exchange for the check, the claimant received a money order made payable to the fellow employe, The claimant altered the payee's name on the money order to his own name. The Claimant admitted to these facts at the hearing on January 27, 1978 as stated at page 3 of Employes' Exhibit B:


Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 8436
Docket No. 8270
2-CR-FO-'80

"A. (Claimant) Yes, I went down to the currency exchange signed the check and he ... gave me the money."

The organization first contends that the carrier inp roperly suspended the claimant pending a heating under discipline Rule 20(b). Rule 20(b) provides for the suspension of an employe before an investigation where the company suspects that the employe committed a major offense. The organization argues that the claimant never jeopardized the health and safety of other employes so the Claimant is presumptively not guilty of a major. violation. We do not agree with this position. There are many types of misconduct which constitute a major offense and the endangerment of other workers is not an essential prerequisite. The claimant was stealing money from his employer and a fellow employe. Theft by deception is a grave offense justifying suspension before the investigation.

The Organization asserts the penalty of discharge is excessive and arbitrary, especially in light of the Claimant's years of service. We do not agree. The offense was serious; guilt was proven by the Carrier, even admitted to by the Claimant. We may not substitute our judgement for that of the Carrier in situations of this type. The claim must be and is denied.

A W A R D

Claim is denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of August, 1980.