Joseph A. Sickles, Referee


            (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (J. F. Nosh and R. C. Haldeman, Trustees of the Property of ( Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Debtor


                        STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-7187) that:


            (a) The Carrier violated the current Agreement between the parties, when after improper hearing and investigation held on June 30, 1971, it held a second Hearing and Investigation on July 6, 1971, and used an incorrect statement obtained at the fi Bees C. Albani from service with the Carrier.


            (b) Carrier's action in this case was improper, arbitrary, excessive and unwarranted, a misuse of its power, and abuse of an employee rights.


            (c) The total evidence adduced at the second Hearing and Investigation, clearly indicated the pe


            (d) The Carrier shall be required to restore Mrs. Albani to service with all rights unimpaired, and to fully compensate her for all wages and other benefits guaranteed under the Agreement, or Agreements, that she lost between June 30, 1971 and the date she is returned to service, as though she had been continuously employed.


            OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, an employee with slightly over three (3) years'

            service at the time of the incident which lead to her dis

            missal, was suspended from her position as a Clerk-Stenographer in Carrier's

            Transportation Department on June 30, 1971. At the time of her suspension, she

            was charged with the unauthorized reproduction of a twelve-page alphabetical

            listing of records and files pertinent to the function of the Office of Vice

            President Operations, and transmittal of said reproduction to an officer of her

            Union. Investigation was held on July 6, 1971 at which Investigation Carrier

            found Claimant guilty, and subsequently she was dismissed from any and all

            service of the Carrier.


            A review of the entire. record in this case demonstrates that although Claimant did, in fact, admit that she exhibited the file listing to her Union representative, she denies that she did sure `.hen that, and denies that she reproduced a copy of th copy to be out of her poss,·.ssion lerg enough for eomeone else to reproduce same. A copy of the index of r=cor3s and files subsequently appeared in a Union Brief concerning a different grievance which the Union was processing. As a result, Carrier presumed that Claimant had delivered the records in question to her Union representative.


. J
                            Award Number 19759 Page 2

                            Docket Number CL-19937


            Claimant's Union denied that Claimant was the source of the Index of records and files. Three affidavits in the record affirmatively state that Claimant was not the source of the material, although the affidavits fail to disclose the source.


            At the Investigation and in Briefs, Carrier stresses the confidentiality of the information containe to her Union Representative. However a review of the entire record fails to demonstrate evidence that Carrier considered the document to be in the same confidential status prior to the incident in question. Moreover, there is no evidence of record to show that in the short time Claimant occupied the position of Steno-Clerk in the Transportation Office (approximately 7 months) she was ever instructed that her position and the materials she worked with were of a confidential nature. This f to prove that it was Claimant's copy of the file index which was reproduced, which leads us to conclude that discipline of dismissal for exhibiting a file index to a Union officer is extremely excessive. A reprimand or brief suspension would have been more appropriate under the circumstances.


            We will, therefore, order that Claimant be restored to service withi thirty (30) days of the date of this Award with seniority and other rights unimpaired, and that the wage lose will be awarded.


                  FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


                  That the parties waived oral hearing;


            That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;


            That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and


                  That the discipline imposed was excessive.


                              A W A R D


                  Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion and Findings.


                                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BQ4RD

                                      By Order of Third Division


            ATTEST:

            Executive Secrets-3~ r


            Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of May 1973.

      I


' ~- ^~ _