Vorm 1 NA'I'rONA1~ RA LLRnAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. wu3`(
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8848
 2-CR-EW-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott M. Abramson when award was rendered.
 Tnternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

 Parties to Dispute: ( Consolidated Rail Corporation

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:















Findings
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and 811 the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employs or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employs within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

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

On June 11, 1979, the Claimant, an electrician, whose service seniority date is June 28, 1967, was found by a Policeman and General Car Foreman to have two Conrail P.A. Speakers in his personal automobile. After investigation on June 20, 1979, the Claimant was found guilty of theft. He was allowed to stay on the job from June 11, 1979 until July 6, 1979 when he was dismissed from all services. The Claimant, in a letter dated July 17, 1979, stated that, in view of his twelve years of service, and in view of the fact that he immediately offered to return the Speakers, his dismissal was an excessive form of discipline. An appeal hearing was held at which the Carrier found no justification for extending leniency and denied a reinstatement.
 Form 1 Award No. 8887
 Paga `- Docket No. WWI
 2-CR-EW-182

 The Claimant's contention that he did not intend to commit a wrongful act and that he believed that the Speakers were scrap which Carrier no longer had any use for is rendered unpersuasive by Claimant's admissions at the investigation. Claimant testified that he did not have any authority to remove those Speakers and put them in his automobile. He also stated that the Speakers were laying in the MoDock and when cars are stripped in the MoDock ... "we save all the material we can". It is reasonable to believe that the Carrier would not strip cars in order to salvage material so that employees, without authority, could remove said salvagable material for their own use.

 The Claimant's allegationihat the investigation was unfairly conducted is overshadowed by such clear evidence to the effect that he took the Speakers without authorization. The Claimant also acknowledged, at the investigation, that it was conducted in a fair manner.

 Though it is clear that the Claimant took the Speakers without authorization it is also true that he made no attempt to conceal them. Claimant had to first repair them before they could be u::ed and then they were easily viewed inside his automobile which he drove to work, on the property, each day. Also the Claimant was fully cooperative as lie quickly admitted to having taken the Speakers, offered to immediately return them and actually did return them on the same clay he was confronted about them. Additionally, it seems as though the Carrier regarded this incident as relatively non-threatening to its interests since when he admitted he had unauthorizedly taken the Speakers Claimant was not held out of service, pending investigation. Instead he was allowed to remain on the job from the day he admitted to having taken t'ie Speakers (June 11, 1979) until the day he was actually discharged, (July 6, 1)79. If Carrier truly felt Claimant was a threat to steal further it would not have allowed him to continue working on the property during this period.

 This Board has consistently stated in awards that stealing from Carriers, regardless of the value of the stolen property, is grounds for discharge. We have been reluctant to substitute our judgment for the judgment of the Carrier in such cases and have avoided reinstating discharged employees who lave been fotmd guilty of theft. We have, however, on some occasions, reversed a Carrier's actions if we though the discipline imposed was unreasonably exce::sive or the discipline, had by the time of our deliberation:,, served its purpose. (See Award No. 806E>; Second Division.

 In the instant case, it would seem that the detriment already experienced by Claimant sufficiently measures his offense. The Claimant was a twelve year employee with only two unrelated infractions nn leis record. His honest and cooperative manner, when questioned about the Speakers, also persuades this Board that he should have one last chance to return to employment and become a productive and exemplary employee. Claimant mast he made aware that if lie is involved in any further like incidents his discharge would be imminent. This Board would doubtless deny a further chance to return to work.
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 8887
 Docket No. 8848
 2-CR-EW-182

 AwnRD

 Claimant is returned to service without any back wages or adjustment for lost benefits.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


.'

 ;By
 em.arie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
 at t ,
Date4dt Micago, Illinois, this 27th day of January, 1982.