Form 1 NAT CONAL RAIIROAD AWUS' KENT BOARD Award No. 8934
 SECOND 1)IVISI( )N Docket No. 8837
 2-MC-CM-'82
 The Second Division consisted of the reYular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott M. Abramson wren award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




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 respec:ively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approves June 21, 1934.

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

In this case Claimant was alleged to hive reported doing repair work on cars, during his 3:00 P.M. - 11:00 P.M. shifts on August 9 and August 10, 1979, which he did not actually perform. His alleged fraudulent reporting respecting having made such repairs was asserted to have violated Rule C. ("Company will not knowlingly employ anyone not of good character ... employees who are dishonest will not be retained in the service of the Company"), and Rule U. ("The following are prohibited while on duty ... the performance of illegal acts...") Pursuant to the results of an investigative hearing held on August 29, 1979 Claimant was dismissed from service on September 4, 1979.

 The facts in this matter were developed when, in the course of making the type of routine inspection he had often conducted on his day off, the General Supervisor noticed that threads of .3 hand br4tke bolt had been recently burned with a torch. Such characteristic, generally, is an indication that a brake wheel had been replaced. But this supervisor observed that the wheel had not been replaced and that the brake was badly in need of adjustment. Thus, in view of the fact that it seemed as though no work had been done on the hand brake,
 7"Jrm I Award No. 8934
 Page: ~' Docket No. 8837
 2-MC-CM-182

 the General Supervisor was set to wondering whether the bolts had been burned to create the misleading appearance that the brake had been repaired.

 The General Supervisor testified that he than consultec Claimant's work repair form regarding the car in question and fomd that Claimant had reported that he had made certain repairs on such cars and had put on new parts. However, the supervisor's check of the car in question, he testified, revealed that such repairs had not been made and such new parts not affixed. Even the repair the car had been "shopped' for had not been accomplished. These findings were substantiated by investigations, of the car, which the General Supervisor requested two other Foreman make. The General Supervisor then consulted other work report cards filed by Claimant and, upon investigation, fotald that repairs listed thereon as having been made had not, in fact, been doze. The General Supervisor requested two unic n representatives to investigatE respectin_ such alleged repairs and their fii~.dings corroborated his own - that the listE3 repairs had not been made. TLere are also photographs which f llegedly of rify the fact that acne of the wo;-k Claimant reported he did coulo not possit Le have .been physically performed because of the very physical nature of propert ,r on which such work was reported as having been done. Additionally, a letter from an i zdependent consultant confirms that Claimant misreported variois repairs.

 In any event, Claimant conclusively admittec, at the invesitgative hearing, that the work reports he hao filed on August 9th and 10th were fallacious. At page 11 of the investigative transcript he state::

The Car Department employees participate in a Wage Incentive Program which provides substantial earning opportunities over and above regular hourly rates of pay. The Carrier asserts that when Claimant falsely noted various repairs he was defrauding the Carrier of the funds which would have, been disbursed to him as incentive payments in coi,pensation for such repairs. The Carrier further points out theet ;ES] '3'°s~a~:tempts to gain compensation for work which lie did not actually perform had var.ous other untoward implications and possible ramifications. Because of m.shilling for repairs which Claimant's actions wou l.d have induced, the Carrier to commit, and the procedures of ate American Association of Railroads on such matters, the Federal Government, it is alleged, might havE been misbilled for such charges, the Carrier itself might have been subjected to severe fines and penaltier:, other railroads whose cars were purportedly repaired, according to Claimant's misrepresentations, might have reacted extremely adversely to misbillings by this Carrier and have 'black balled" it in the future, parties responsible Cor damage, (including, Jrnzes and Laughlin Steel, by far, Carrier's most impcWtant customer) purportedly. but not actually, repaired by Claimant could have been billed for such "non-repkirs", and safety hazards imperilling other employees could have been created.
 Form 1 Award No. &)31+
 Page 3 Docket No. 8;;37
 2-NC-CM-182

 The Claimant asserted ti~at while lie knew it was "wrong" to enter on the repair forms, notatiois respecting work he'd not actually performed, he did not know that by reporting work on foreigr cars is iUegal or that he could be subject to dLscipltne for such acts. lle claimed, further that "everyone else doer. it" and that in cases where a Foreman realizes a Carman noted a repair not actually performed the normal procedure is to bring the forms back to the employee and advise that the employee either remove such notation from the form or perfozm the work to which it refers. Thus, Claimant asserts the disciplinary action taken against him in this matter represents discriminatory treatment via a via other employees performing similar work. Tre Claimant also refers to adverse discriminatory treatment in that the Helper wt o worked with him when the allegedly falsely reported repairs were made, and on o~hose behalf the forms noting these repairs were tlso filed, was assessed but. a thirty day suspension in this matter while Claimant was dismissed.

 Taking up the latter point first, it should be noted that there is evidence in the record to the effec- that claimant's Helper haci no actual participation in completing the false wo-k reports that are at the Heart of this case. While he may have known what Claimant was doing there is no evidence that he instigated the composition of the bogs reports or assisted in their formulation. Indeed, the Claimant himself admits that his Helper did not actually take part in making up the false work reports. There is also testimony, in the record of the investigative hearing, indicating that the Helper was not very aware of the information the false reports contained and that. he really does not understand some of the things that go on the work report sheets or how the latter should be filled out. The Helper also c intended that lie wasn't even aware, at the time the false reports in issue were filed, that the submi;;sion of such false reports would subject him to discipline.

 Thus, as the just indicated factors demonstrate, whatever the association of Claimant's Helper with the filing of the false reports it was at a level much less direct than that occupied by Claimant in the matter. Consequently, the assessment of a penalty respecting the Helper which is more modest than that accorded Claimant in no way establishes that Claimant received discriminatory adverse treatment.

 However, as pointed out, it is also asserted, on behalf of Claimant, that a "double standard" was applied to him in that other employees submit inaccurate work reports (in their own favor) but are not disciplined as Claimant was here. In other words, Claimant did only "what everybody else does" but was the only one penalized for it. In fact, contends ClFimant, it is just because "everyone" enters tasks on their work report forms not in fact performed that Claimant believed he would not be subject ':o discipline for such falsification. He asserted that when a worker wrote up a job not performed, at worst, a Foreman who noticed that a discrepancy ex'_sted would return the sheet on which the erroneous entry was made and instruct the employee to, either actually complete the work indicated or. remove such entry from the sheet.

 In fact, the record does indicate that Carrier acknowledges that some misreporting by employees, in general, does occur. However, it insists, in effect, that such other misreporting as goes on is so different in degree from the type of false ceparting indulged in by Claimant as to be different in kind. The
 Form 1 Award No. 8934
 ~'agc~ '~ Docket No. 8837
 2-M -CM-' 82

 Organization argues that Claimant, based on Carrier's own admissions, is being dismissed for not knowing the difference between a little and too much, t,ut Carrier seeks to point out, basically, that too much of the same thing mEy convert the latter into a quite different more serious tong.

 The Carrier intimates that other misreporting which has gone on has )een in the nature of minor errors or, at the most, pecadilloes. For example, tr;e General Supervisor testified that sometimes employees will report having driven something like 220 rivets respecting a job as to which, in fact, only 200 rivets were driven. However, the job itself will =questionably have been done. Similarly, testified the Genera. Supervisor, sometimes workers will list having performed the component aspects of a job -- the various separate functions that wet: into completing the ,jobs as a unit --- as well as the jobs itself. in such cases the component functions are lined off the repair form so that employees are not compensated twice for the same work.

 Certainly there is a difference between venial sins and grave ones even in a given category of sin. Human nature may be unable to resist cutting a corner, here and there, but that is very different than reporting that one went completely arcund the course when one did not traverse even any part of it. Consequently, siree what Claimant admits having clone, in the way of submitting false work reports, seems to involve such a greater magnitude of fraud than that in which the evidence sbows any other employee to have been engaged disciplining claimant vigorously, for his admitted fallocious reporting, does not amount to discriminating against him, unEairly, via a vis, other employees.

 This point is perhaps best established by the fact that an organization representative at the investigative hearing, repudiated any suggestion t1 at widespread and flagrant misreporting of repair work occurred amongst Claimant's co-workers. This representative acknowledged that employees may meke slight errors in their own favor, in filling out their work cards. His eaample was the reporting of the fact that 210 rivets were driven when, in fact, only 200 may have been driven. However, his next words, addressed to Claimant, sharply indicate the wide gulf between what Claimant admits to having done in this case and the minor infractions which other employees may, from time to Lime, leave committed:"... but ... making claim: like you made ... No one lies to t<<at extent . _, or

 As indicated above, organization asserts that. Claimant is being penalized for not knowing the difference between a little and a lot of lybig. But there is a difference and since Claimant was employed for ahaost two an-1 one-half years it is fair t~ assume he knew the rules of Carmen's conduct and, therefore, that, in this cont4 -xt, the difference in degree between a little and << lot made, very definitel,,, be a difference in kind.

 Carr:er contends that Claimant sought to obtain monies to which he was not entitled, subjected his employer to the possibility of fines and his fellow employees to potential safety hazards. It is asserted that such conduct amounts to moral turpitude and Carrier vigorously takes t;ie position, therefore, that an employee involved in such infractions may not be permitted to remain in its employ. To support this position Carrier presents strong authoritv.
 Form 1 Award No. 8934
 Page 5 Docket No. 8837
 2-MC-CM-'82





Also, in Award No. 3628, Second Division, involving a discharge the Board observed:



Finally, in Award No. 1756, Second Division, this Board commented on the graveness of the type of dishonest conduct in which Claimant, in the instant case, engaged

Thus, as can be seen, the Second Division has consistently validated dismissal as appropriate disciplinary action respecting the type of defrauding activity perpetrated by this Claimant.

 Additionally, the discipline assesses here would seem proper in view of the fact that Claimant had been employed for less than two and one-half years at the time of his offense.