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.

On November 30, 1993, Carrier issued Claimant a Notice of Investigation directing him to

"...Attend investigation in the Trainmaster's Conference Room, Great Falls Yard Office, Great Falls, Montana, at 1 p.m., December 9, 1993, for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining responsibility, if any, in connection with you alleged misuse of a Company credit card, as disclosed to Burlington Northern Operating Officer on November 24, 1993."

Following the Investigation Claimant was advised by Carrier that he was assessed a 30 day actual suspension. In addition, he was directed to make restitution to the Carrier in the amount of $138.87.

It is the position of the Organization that the Claimant was not afforded a fair and impartial Investigation in that: 1) he was not advised of the specific charges against him; 2) since Claimant's Supervisor was also the Hearing Officer, he could not be unbiased; and 3) Claimant's prior infractions were improperly mentioned by Carrier during the Hearing. A careful review of the record does not support the Organization's contentions. It is apparent from the Notice of Investigation, and the Organization's vigorous defense at the Hearing, that Claimant was well aware of the infraction with which he had been charged. Further, there is no evidence that the Hearing Officer was unduly biased in his conduct of the Hearing. Finally, although the Board agrees that past "bad acts" may not be offered as probative of a present alleged misdeed, there is no evidence that they were the basis upon which the Carrier determined Claimant's culpability.

With respect to the merits of this case, the transcript of the Hearing indicates that not only did Claimant misuse Carrier's credit card by using it for personal calls, but also that he was well aware that such behavior was prohibited. Accordingly, the Carrier has met its burden of persuasion, without regard to Claimant's past discipline record. In light of the seriousness of Claimant's misdeed, Carrier's assessment of a 30 day actual suspension was neither excessive nor arbitrary. Moreover, restitution to Carrier of the moneys involved is entirely appropriate.

AWARD