Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9939
SECOND DIVISION Locket No. 9854
2-CRC-MA-'84
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee W. J. Peck when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers



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 respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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



Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a Machinist on date of September 4, 1974. While the record does not so state this was apparently at Carrier's Grand Central Terminal, New York City, and also although the record does not so state Claimant apparently was employed at that facility until the event which triggered this event occurred.

On date of May 4, 1981 Carrier sent Claimant a notice advising him that he was removed from the service of the Carrier and further that he would be notified of the charges to be lodged against him and of the time and place of trial. On date of May 5, 1981 Claimant was advised by Carrier that he would be charged with unauthorized removal .end possession of company property at approximately 1:30 P.M. on May 4, 1981, in that ~te had allegedly been observed with two cans of the Racon Refrigerant in the trunk of his automobile by Conrail Police Officer Joseph Boughal. Time of the trial May 12, 1981, place, the Office of the Assistant Master mechanic Track 39, Grand Central Terminal.
Form 1 Award No. 9939
Page 2 Docket No. 9854
2-CRC-MA-184!

The trial was held as scheduled, but the Claimant did not appear, and other than coming onto the property to pick up his check has not been seen since. He was represented in absentia by the Local Shop Steward.

On date of May 14, 1981 Claimant was advised by Carrier via mail service that he was "assessed the discipline of dismissal in all capacities."

In their submission to this Board Carrier contends that the claim should be dismissed as not properly before this Board. They also contend that the charges were clearly proven and that the claim should be denied.

In considering all of the facts and evidence in this case, it is clear that the Claimant did take the coolant.






                            By Order of Second Division


Attest; ~~ee'40 ~ .
        Nancy . D'er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of June, 1984