(Brotherhood 'of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

(a) Carrier violated the rules of the current Clerks' Agreement at Los Angeles, California, on October 9, 1973, when it wrongfully discharged Mr. Jon L. Bice from service, and

 (b) Mr. Jon L. Bice .hall now be reinstated and compensated for all monetary loss suffered commencing October 9, 1973, and continuing until such time as he is reinstated, as a result of such violation of Agreement rules.

 (c) The Carrier shall be required to pay 67. interest compounded daily on all wages wrongfully withheld from Mr. Jon L. Bice commencing October 9, 1973.

On September 24, 1973, Claimant was advised'by Carrier that a formal investigation was being called for October 1, 1973, to determine the facts and place his responsibility, if any, in connection with falsification of records to absent himself from his assignment, April 13, April 24, and May 17, 1973, in the possible violation of Rules 16, 17 and 18 of the General Rules for the Guidance of Employee..

 As a result of the investigation that was held on October 1, 1973, Claimant was removed from service on October 9, 1973. Claimant was found by Carrier to have violated Rules 16, 17, and 18 of the General Rules for the Guidance of Employes, which read as follows:















Numerous prior awards of this Board set forth our function in discipline cases. Our function in disc judgment for the Carrier's nor to decide the matter in accord with what we might or might not have done had it been ours to determine, but to pass upon the question whether, without weighing it, there is substantial evidence to sustain a finding of guilty. If that question is decided in the affirmative, the penalty imposed for the violation is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of the Carrier. We are not warranted in disturbing Carrier's penalty unless we can action with respect thereto was discriminatory, unjust, unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary, so as
Turning then to the case at hand, the Board notes that dishonesty in any form is a matter of serious concern, and often results in dismissal from. the service of a Carrier.

 The term "dishonesty" means misconduct that involves either money or property. It goes beyond misappropriation or theft in that it includes any conduct that tends to perpetuate a fraud on a carrier resulting in financial lose. A list of abu taking or giving bribes, misusing carrier's records, forms, or procedures, tampering with vending machines, padding expenses reports, and using Carrier's funds for personal purposes. Falsifying work records or information on job applications are two particularly troublesome and common acts of dishonesty.


Such dishonest acts as these, among others, have been established as providing just cause for discipline or discharge. The burden of proof rests with the Carrier, as always, and the punishment must be timely and befit the employe's work record. Because a charge of dishonesty reflects upon a person's character and standing in society at large, the evidence presented by the'charging party, the Carrier, must be fully persuasive, i.e., truly substantial and not flimsy.

 This Board appears to. agree generally that some discipline up to and including discharge is warranted when an employe is proved to have falsified time or production records, employment applications, or other Carrier documents.and forms, as well as obtaining permission to be off through misrepresentation. However, it must be shown that the act was a deliberate one with intent to defraud, rather than a mere oversight or lapse of memory.

 Looking at the record as a whole, the Board finds there is substantial evidence to show that Cla assigned hours is a very serious offense and frequently results in dismissal from the service.

 The charge of Claimant that Carrier's discipline was harsh and excessive is not borne out by the Claimant's excessive absenteeism of 77'k days in one 13-month period. In all of these examinations nothing medically wrong was found to explain Claimant's excessive absenteeism.

 Moreover, after Carrier reviewed Claimant's past attendance record with him on August 24, 1973, Claimant was absent all or part of nine (9) days between August 27 and September 4, 1973.

 The evidence is sufficiently substantial to support the charges that Claimant falsified records by stating that he was off sick, when,in fact, he was not on at least three occasions. We cannot say that the Carrier was in any way arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in good faith. Carrier considered the past record of Claimant and properly considered it only in measuring and determining the penalty to be made. It was not used in an attempt to strengthen Carrier's case on the charges which are the subject of this opinion. Zn deference to Claimant's prio Carrier was justified in dismissing the Claimant. We will accordingly deny the claim.






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; apd



          Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


' ATTEST:
 Ex cutAwl616-4OR
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of June 1976.