f orm . t NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 88(1%0
 SECOND LnVISION Docket No. 875E>
 2-CR-MA-'82
 The Second Division consisted of he regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Rouki~ when award was rendered.
 ( IrCernatioical Assoc iatior of Mschini;ts and
 Parts .s to 1)is utc~_ ( Aerospace Workers

Dispute: Claim of Employer




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 employer involved in th~_s dispute are i2spectively carrier and employe w: thin the meaning of the Railway labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

 this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdi~a ion ver the dispute invol,ed herein.

An investigation was held on February 28, 1979 to determine whether Cl.aitlant, a Machinist assigned to the C©llinwood Diesel Terminal at Cleveland, Ohio was guilty of the following charges:



Based on the inve:;tigative rmcord, Carrier concluded that he was guilty of the cited offenses and dismissed him from service, effective March 9, 1979. This disposition was appeal:d.

 In defense of hip position, Claimant raises several objections, which he contends affected the integrity of the investigative trial. Specifically, he argues that Carrier's disciplinary action subjected him to double jeopardy since
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 8880
 Docket No. 8756
 2-CR-M\-' 82

 he was found guilty of the same charges in criminal court and that he was not provided with specific charges when he was notified to appear for investigation. Moreover, he argues that two of the three officers involved in the July 14, 1978 incident were not present at the investigation for cross examination.

 Carrier contends that it was not legally or contractually precluded from conducting an independent disciplinary investigation and that Claimant was fully aware of the pxoferxed charges at this time to prepare a competent defense. It argues that his due process rights were not violated, when two cf the three officers involved in the July 14, 1978 incident, were not present at the investigation, since Claimant willingly acknowledged his guilt at this proceeding and did not ask for a trial postponement. It asserts that his participation in the theft of tires from Rockport Yard on July 14, 1973 and his subsequent attempt to escape capture were explicitly verified by Officer Preisol, who testified that Claimant was the driver of the vehicle that attempted to run him over that night and Captain Lucas' testimony that Claimant appeared in criminal court on November 29, 1978 and pleaded guilty to one count of felonious assault and one count of grand theft.

 In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier's position. The record shows that Claimant was afforded an investigative trial that comported with the requirements of contracted due process and that he was found guilty of charges by substantial evidence, including 'ri,a,,cywn. admission of culpability. On the night of July 1.4, 1978, Claimant and three accomplices stole 20 1ires from rail cars-on Carrier's property and attempted to run down officer Preisol, when he tried to apprehend them. Claimant was not only identified as the driver of the vehicle, but he pleaded guilty in criminal court to cne count of felonious assault and one count of grand theft. Surely, this is a telling admission, which fovxsquarely confirms Carrier's charged specifications and we are constrained by this clear finding to affirm Carrier's penalty determination. Theft is an intolerable offense, which cannot be tc~lexated in the employment relationship and merits immediate dismissal when it is established by solid probative evidence. We will deny the claim.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Boart

NAT-TONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

1y Order of Second Division


B~

Dated Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of January, 1982,