(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond and Jervis Langdon, Jr., ( Trustees of the Property of ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective February 1, 1968, particularly Rule 6-A-1, when it assessed discipline of dismissal on F. P.Leonard, Chauffeur, Plant Altoona, Pa.

 (b) Claimant F. P. Leonard's record be cleared of the charges brought against him on January 24, 1972.

 (c) Claimant F. P. Leonard be restored to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, and be compensated for wage loss sustained during the period out of service, plus interest at 6% per annum compounded daily.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed as a Chauffeur in Carrier's Plant Secur
 ity Fire Department. On January 21, 1972, while on duty,
 Claimant was observed by two Carrier police officers in the act of pumping gasoline
 from a Company tank into the gas tank of his own truck and into a metal.container
 in the bed of the truck. Claimant was arrested by the officers and taken before
 a magistrate and charged with larceny. On the following day he entered a plea of
 guilty and was ordered to make restitution of $6.74 for the gasoline and to pay
 court costs. On February 8, 1972, following a hearing, Claimant was dismissed
 from service, having been found guilty of the charge of appropriating company
 gasoline as indicated above.

 Petitioner contends that Claimant was not afforded a fair and impartial hearing, as contemplated by the Rules, in that the hearing officer acted as accuser for the Carrier that this argument was not raised prior to the submission to the Board and therefore cannot be consi "double jeopardy" in that he was tried before the magistrate for the same offense which resulted in his being disciplined by Carrier. We find no merit in this argument since a Carrie of criminal or civil courts; the criminal law concept alluded to is not relevant to disciplinary actions in any event.


Contrary to Petitioner's position, we find that the record reveals a fair and impartial investigation. The guilt of Claimant was well supported and admitted by him. The discipline imposed was neither arbitrary nor capricious,
 in spite of the small dollar value of the gasoline involved dishonesty
 must be considered a serious offense.

        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 Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes 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 Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:.- ~/VV, ~~[
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of September 1973.
              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

              Award Number 19929

              THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-20120


                Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee


(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond and Jervis Langdon, Jr., ( Trustees of the Property of ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

              STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-7259) that:


(a) The Carrier pioiated the. Rules Agreement,. effective February 1, 1968, particularly Rule 6-A-1, when it assessed discipline of dismissal on F. P.Leonard, Chauffeur, Plant Altoona, Pa.

 (b) Claimant F. P. Leonard's record be cleared of the charges brought against him on January 24, 1972.

 (c) Claimant F. P. Leonard be restored to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, and be compensated for wage loss sustained during the period out of service, plus interest at 67. per annum compounded daily.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed as a Chauffeur in Carrier's Plant Secur
 ity Fire Department. On January 21, 1972, while on duty,
 Claimant was observed by two Carrier police officers in the act of pumping gasoline
 from a Company tank into the gas tank of his own truck and into a metal.container
 in the bed of the truck. Claimant was arrested by the officers and taken before
 a magistrate and charged with larceny. On the following day he entered a plea of
 guilty and was ordered to make restitution of $6.74 for the gasoline and to pay
 court costs. On February 8, 1972, following a hearing, Claimant was dismissed
 from service, having been found guilty of the charge of appropriating company
 gasoline as indicated above.

 Petitioner contends that Claimant was not afforded a fair and impartial hearing, as contemplated by the Rules, in that the hearing officer acted as accuser for the Carrier that this argument was not raised prior to the submission to the Board and therefore cannot be consi "double jeopardy" in that he was tried before the magistrate for the same offense which resulted in his being disciplined by Carrier. We find no merit in this argument since a Carrie of criminal or civil courts; the criminal law concept alluded to is not relevant to disciplinary actions in any event.
                  Award Number 19929 Page 2

                  Docket Number CL-20120


Contrary to Petitioner's position, we find that the record reveals a fair and impartial investigation. The guilt of Claimant was well supported and admitted by him. The discipline imposed was neither arbitrary nor capricious,
 in spite of the small dollar value of the gasoline involved dishonesty
 must be considered a serious offense.

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

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: .· Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of September 1973.