Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10471
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10379
2-CR-EW-185
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Hyman Cohen when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement the Consolidated Rail Corporation
(Conrail) unjustly dismissed Electrician Steven R. Walker from service
effective June 10, 1982.
2. That accordingly, the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) be
ordered to restore Electrician Steven R. Walker to service with
seniority unimpaired and with all pay due him from the first day he was
held out of service until the day he is returned to service, at the
applicable Electrician's rate of pay for each day he has been
improperly held from service; and with all benefits due him under the
group hospital and life
insurance policies
for the aforementioned
period; and all railroad retirement benefits due him, including
unemployment and sickness for the aforementioned period; and all
vacation and holiday benefits due him under the current vacation and
holiday agreements for the aforementioned period; and all other
benefits that would normally have accrued to him had he been working in
the aforementioned period in order to make him whole; and expunge his
record.
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 of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Claimant is employed by the Carrier as an Electrician at its Buckeye
Diesel Terminal facility, located at Columbus, Ohio. Following a trial that was
held on June 3, 1982, the Claimant was dismissed from service for the unauthorized possession of, removal or disposal of, material from railroad property
*** "in violation of Rule (L-3) of the "General Rules for the Conduct of
Employees in the M of E Locomotive Department."
Form 1 Award No. 10471
Page 2 Docket No. 10379
2-CR-EW-185
On May 6, 1982 at 11:55 p.m., Conrail Patrolman Washington observed the
Claimant pump diesel fuel from the Carrier's diesel pad into a "wooden enclosure"
of his personal truck. After observing the Claimant for approximately five (5)
minutes, he approached him and placed him under arrest for theft of Company
property. Conrail Patrolman Washington then transported the Claimant to the
Franklin County jail and charged him with theft. On June 14, 1982 the Claimant
entered a plea of guilty to an amended charge of unauthorized use of property.
It should be noted that the Claimant's truck was impounded, and after a search
warrant was obtained, approximately 158 gallons of diesel fuel was found to be in
the "wooden enclosure" of the truck.
The Claimant testified that he was at the location on May 6 to wash off
"some parts" with diesel fuel. Even assuming the truthfulness of the Claimant's
testimony, he was nevertheless using the Carrier's fuel to wash parts for his
personal use without permission or authority of the Carrier to do so. Accordingly, the Claimant violated Rule (L-3) on May 6, 1982.
In its letter to the Claimant dated May 7, 1982, the Carrier notified the
Claimant that he was held out of service in connection with Rule (L-3). It set
forth Rule (L-3) after which the Carrier stated that the Claimant "will be
advised subsequently whether you will be charged, and, if so, the specific
charges on which you will be tried." The Carrier's letter was sent to the
Claimant on the same day that he was arrested for theft of the diesel fuel.
Thus, the reasonable inference to be drawn is that the Claimant was aware of the
reason why he had been withheld from service. The Board also concludes that the
Carrier's May 7 letter apprised the Claimant of the exact offense for which he
was to be tried. Support for this conclusion is based upon the Claimant's
testimony in which he stated: "I am charged with violation of Rule L-3 on May
6th and 7th. At that time I was pulled out of service ***." Furthermore, there
is nothing in the record to indicate that the Claimant was not prepared to defend
himself against the charge that he violated Rule (L-3). Accordingly, pursuant to
Rule 6-A-3 the Claimant was "given reasonable advance notice in writing of the
exact offense for which he [was] to be tried."
There is another matter which must be addressed. The trial transcript
disclosed that John Brown, a Laborer, was charged with having violated Rule (L3). After trial he was found guilty and the Carrier imposed a penalty of thirty
(30) days disciplinary suspension. The Organization contends that the Carrier
discriminated against the Claimant by applying a more severe penalty against him
than Laborer Brown, who it should be noted had four (4) years of service as
opposed to the Claimant's length of service which amounted to approximately
thirteen (13) years and three (3) months.
Form 1 Award No. 10471
Page 3 Docket No. 10379
2-CR-EW-185
Penalties for the same offense can be applied differently, depending upon
the circumstances of each case. However, there is nothing in the record to
indicate what actions of Laborer Brown led to the finding that he violated Rule
(L-3). The record discloses that he was the "fuel man on the pad" beginning with
his shift at 11:00 p.m. on May 6, 1982. Laborer Brown observed the Claimant when
he fueled the South Unit during the evening in question, and as he was about to
pick up a hose to fuel the North Unit, he "saw the police arriving." He then
reported such information to his Foreman. Obviously, these statements do not
disclose when Laborer Brown committed the violation of Rule (L-3). Indeed,
Laborer Brown's entire testimony revealed nothing about the circumstances which
resulted in the finding that he violated Rule (L-3).
The Organization bears the burden of proving that the penalties have been
applied by the Carrier in a discriminatory
manner. To
sustain the Organization's
argument on this aspect of the dispute between the parties would mean that the
Board has inferred that the circumstances surrounding Laborer Brown's violation
of Rule (L-3) are similar to the circumstances involving the Claimant on or about
May 7, 1982. Such a conclusion finds no support in the record and would be based
upon mere conjecture. The Claimant acted without authority, when he removed
approximately 158 gallons of diesel fuel from the Carrier's "diesel pad" and
placed the Carrier's property into a wooden enclosure in his personal truck.
Simply stated, the Claimant committed an extremely serious offense. The
commission of theft by employees cannot be tolerated in the work place.
Furthermore dismissal for such conduct "is not an excessive application of
discipline or an abuse of discretion." See Third Division Award No. 19735.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy ./fiver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of July 1985.