i )

































Form 1 Award No. 9808
Page 2 Docket No. 9390
2-SOU-FO-184

After a preliminary investigation of the charges was conducted on June 24, 1980, the Claimant was suspended for 30 days. Later the same day the Claimant asked for a formal investigation. The Carrier granted his request and decided to hold the suspension in abeyance pending outcome of the formal investigation. Again on that same day (June 24, 1980) the Claimant advised the Carrier he had decided to withdraw his request for a formal investigation. The Carrier then told him that the 30-day suspension would begin immediately.

On ,Tune 27, 1980, after he had begun serving the suspension, the Claimant advised the Carrier by letter that he had again changed his mind and wanted a formal investigation. The Carrier granted his request and held the remainder of the suspension in abeyance.

After several postponements at the request of both parties, a formal investigation. was ultimately conducted on July 25, 1980. Master Mechanic F. L. Brown notified the Claimant in an August 1, 1980, letter that the charges against him had been confirmed. The letter also stated:







The Organization feels that the Claimant's dismissal was unjust, especially since he had not received any previous suspension for absenteeism or tardiness. It also asserts that the Carrier's method of payment for jury service entrapped the Claimant. That is, over the five months o f his jury service the Carrier should periodically have deducted his court-paid compensation from his regular earnings for each day of jury service. Such a procedure conforms to the December 6, 1978 Agreement, and would have required to Claimant to submit regular court verification of jury service.

The Carrier maintains there is no question the Claimant falsified his time cards. He was given every opportunity to resolve the discrepancy between the 21 days he claimed for jury service and the 19 days he actually served. He did not do so.

The Carrier also argues that its method of payment for jury service has no hearing on this case.
Form 1 - Award No. 9808
Page 3 Docket No. 9390
2-SOU-FO-184

With respect to the Claimant's absenteeism and tardiness, the Carrier notes that during the 30 days prior to the preliminary investigation he did not work and did not so advise the Carrier on 9 days. During that same period he was also absent 6 more days when he reported off for various reasons, and twice failed to work his entire shift.

Finally, the Carrier maintains that it properly converted the Claimant's 30day suspension to discharge. It cites rule 34(a) & (d) of a May 8, 1975, Agreement in support of its position:






Carrier's decision to discharge the Claimant was reasonable. First, we are
persuaded from the record before us that he falsified his time cards with the
intent to defraud the Carrier. He claimed 21 days' pay for jury service, received
said pay, and therefore has the obligation to verify such service. He did not do
so. We find this offense alone of sufficient magnitude to justify his termination.

The Claimants chronic absenteeism, and to some extent his tardiness as well, add to the severity of his offense. We take note that he received no prior suspensions for his absence/tardiness record. Accordingly, if his discharge had been based solely on that record we would question whether he had received the benefit of progressive discipline. But again, falsification of his time cards is serious enough on its own to justify termination.

Moreover, the Board is not persuaded that the Carrier's method of payment for jury service entrapped the Claimant. The Carrier did not encourage him to falsify the time cards, nor do we believe verification of an entire course o f jury service after its completion would somehow induce an honest employee to falsify Carrier records.

Finally, we find nothing improper in the Carriers decision to convert the 30-day suspension to a discharge. Its reliance on the terms of Rule 34 (quoted in part herein) for authority to do so is proper.
Form 1
Page 4

Claim denied.

Attest: 4**!A9- e4e~


Award No. 9808
Docket No. 9390
2-SOU-FO-'84

A W A R D

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division

Nancy

- Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of March, 1984