C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-09140.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9140 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9195 2-scL-FO-' 82 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Thomas V. Bender when award was rendered. ( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers Parties to Dispute: ( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. That under the current and controlling agreement, Laborer Eddie B. Taylor, was unjustly dismissed from

service

of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, on March

14,

1980, after a formal investigation was held in the office of Mr. T. P. King, Conducting Officer, on March

1980.

2. That accordingly Eddie B. Taylor, Laborer, be restored to his regular assignment at Mulberry Yard with all seniority unimpaired, vacation, health and welfare, hospital and life insurance be paid and compensated for all lost time, effective March 3, 1980, date Mr. Taylor was removed from service, and the payment of

interest rate added thereto.

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 respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+. This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

Eddie B. Taylor is a laborer employed by the Carrier at its yard in Mulberry, Florida. Part of the Claimant's duties involve the fueling of engines. This is; the part of the Claimant's duties which led to the events of February 23, 1980. The facts show that the Claimant and a Clerk-Operator named Parker fueled Mate 3222 with 3020 gallons of diesel. This was accomplished at about 2:30 P.m. and the transaction was recorded on fuel ticket #370. This ticket was signed by the Claimant and counter signed by Clerk-Operator Parker. Claimant separated from Parker and went to fuel Mate 3221 with Clerk Clement. Following this job fuel ticket #351 was made out, and counter signed by both Claimant and Clerk Clement. The Claimant then asked Clement to sign a fuel ticket (~r3o850) covering fuel delivered to Mate 3222. Clement was told by Claimant that he and Parker had fueled the 3222 but had no pen. Without a pen no fuel ticket could be prepared. Clement signed the second ticket covering the fueling of Engine 3222. Clement accepted the Claimant's word for the fact that the fuel was delivered to the 3222. The value of the fuel reflected on the second Engine Form 1 Award No. 9140 Page 2 Docket No. 9195
2-SCL-FO-182 3222 ticket was $2 , 746. 48 .

The primary question is whether the Carrier presented sufficient evidence of the Claimant's guilt to sustain the charge and resulting discipline. The transcript of the hearing supplies abundant proof that Claimant falsified the fuel ticket (~-,~-30850 covering the fueling of Engine 3222, This Division, has consistently held that a Carrier is well within its managerial right to terminate an employe for theft, stealing, pilferage, or whatever you elect to call actions of the nature involved herein. See generally Award No. 1850 (Second Division, Bailer); Award No. 6824 (Second Division, Eischen). In this case the Board is faced with an employe with approximately 23 years of service. Undoubtedly, the Claimant has dedicated most of his working life to the Carrier. The temptation to reduce the severest of all discipline, dismissal is strong but th~-s Referee is guided bv· the words of Referee David Dolnick, in Award No. 6615, a Secona Divisio~ czse, Mr. Delnick urrote:

"It is indeed unfortunate that employees with 8 and 19 years of service should be dismissed. Employes with long years of efficient service generally receive consideration when the penalty is

dismissal. But such a consideration applied where there may °

be some doubtful evidence and when the proof of guilt is on the

border of 'substantial'. Here the evidence of guilt is more

than 'substantial'. The only reason for reducing the penalty

would be leniency, which this board may not entertain."

With this guidance, the result in this case must be to deny the grievance. The record substantially supports the conclusion that the Claimant forged the fuel ticket.

A W A R D

Claim denied. NATIONAL RAII.RaD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Acting Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board By ~ G osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of June, 1982.