While on duty on October 8, 1999, the Claimant was arrested by local police concerning matters unrelated to his work. The Carrier withheld the Claimant from service, pending the outcome of an Investigative Hearing. An article in the local newspaper reported that the Claimant was arrested "while he was working at his job on the Union Pacific railroad tracks in North Little Rock."
The Organization raises a number of procedural matters which the Board finds to be without substance. One in particular deserves review. The Organization contends that the Claimant was "disciplined" prior to being afforded an Investigative Hearing. This is simply incorrect, in that Rule 32 permits an employee, "in proper cases," to be withheld from service pending a Hearing.
The Organization also argued that the charge against the Claimant was "vague, ambiguous and lacks specificity" and does not indicate the relationship of the charge to the provisions of the cited Rules. The Board finds that the charge was clear as to identifying the incident and was sufficiently precise to permit the Organization and the Claimant to provide a full defense.
As to the merits, the Organization principal argument is that there is no proper basis for discipline when an employee is "arrested" by civil authority, since there is no certain indication as to the criminal charges, if any, and there has been no finding of guilt. Form 1 Award No. 13656
Here, however, the Carrier argues that information provided by the Maintenance Manager; the nature of the alleged crime, as shown on a police report; and a contemporaneous newspaper article are sufficient to make a disciplinary judgment even absent the results of any court action following the arrest. This information is as follows:
First, the Arrest Disposition Report identifies charges for which the arrest was made as "arson" and "theft of property."
Second, the Maintenance Manager testified at the Investigative Hearing that he was in the Carrier's guard shack when police officers were interrogating the Claimant. The Maintenance Manager stated:
Third, the newspaper article, which identified the Claimant by address, stated as follows:
At the Investigative Hearing, the Claimant denied he had made any confession of guilt; denied setting a truck on fire; and denied making a report about a stolen truck.
The Carrier relied on its belief in the credibility of its Maintenance Manager, who stated he heard the Claimant admit to actions about which he was being interrogated. The Carrier also relied on the newspaper report, which, as pointed out by the Organization, did include inaccuracies. On the other hand, the article cited a police report of confession by the Claimant. Form 1 Award No. 13656
Where there is no knowledge of the cause for arrest and no determination of subsequent court action, disciplinary action is usually premature and occasionally without support (for example, if charges are dropped or the employee is found innocent). As discussed above, however, the Carrier had ample basis here to believe the Claimant had confessed. The Board has no reason to question this conclusion and agrees that such alleged criminal action and its accompanying publicity make the Claimant unsuitable for continued employment with the Carrier.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.