The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Margo R. Newman when award was rendered.
( Transportation Communications International ( Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon. Form 1 Award No. 13072
Upon learning of Claimant's guilty plea, Carrier immediately withheld him from service and ordered him to appear for an Investigation on tae charge of being convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude =n violation of Rule 607 of Form 7908. The Investigation ,,7as held on June 22, 1993, at which time Claimant was present, represented and testified on his own behalf. On July 2, 1993 Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty of the charges and was Jismissed from service.
The Carrier argues that Claimant's plea of guilty is sufficient evidence of guilt of the charges, and since his off-duty conduct involved moral turpitude, the penalty was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of its discretion. Second Division Award 11948; Third Division Awards, 29971, 21825, 29778, 28346. The Organization argues that a higher standard is required to prove just cause in an off-duty conduct case, and that the Carrier failed to show any adverse impact or harm created by Claimant's conduct; Third Division Award 22734. The Organization also argues that Rule 607 should not be held to apply to off-duty conduct, and that Carrier's action is void ab initig since it had no rightful jurisdiction over the charged offense. Form 1 Award No. 13072
This Board has rev_ewed -he evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that -here :s sufficient evidence in the record to support the find:.^,? r_hat -:e Claimant was guilty of violating Rule 607 when he entered a cruilty plea of the Class A misdemeanor of Prostitution. The fact -_hat his plea bargain was motivated by his desire to save :,~is laughter's reputation does not change the fact that he entered _ntc :t voluntarily and must be held responsible for its 1mpilcations; Third Division Award 29971. Further, the Investigation revealed that the nature of the charges against Claimant were nigh1_,· publicized locally, known to fellow employees and were detrimental to the Carrier's reputation. Rule 607, by its terms, does not limit its application to conduct occurring on jut,-.-, i::d -1early prohibits conduct leading to a conviction of a misdemea::or -or moral turpitude. Claimant admitted his sexual misconduct -el_ inder the Carrier's guidelines. This Board has held that =arrler ::as the right to discipline an employee for off-duty conduct _:-ro1-r_ng acts of moral turpitude; Second Division Award 11948
Having determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a guilty finding, we turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition ~f discipline unless we find its action to have been unreasonable, -arbitrary or capricious. The facts clearly establish that Claimant, a short term employee, engaged in serious misconduct involving moral turpitude. Under such circumstances, we cannot say that the Carrier acted unreasonably or exceeded the appropriate limits of its discretion in removing him from service. Second Division Award _1948; Third Division Award 29778.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders than award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.