(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

(1) The removal from service on September 29, 1977 and the subsequent dismissal effective October 14, 1977 of Track Laborer Vidal C. Guerrero was without just and sufficient cause (System File TRRA 1977-34) .

 (2) The hearing held on October 4, 1977 was not conducted in conformance with Agreement Rule 24.

 (3) Claimant Guerrero shall be reinstated with all rights unimpaired and with pay for all time lost."

An investigative hearing was held on October 4, 1977 wherein he was found guilty of this specification and subsequently dismissed from service, effective, October 14, 1977.

 In the instant case, Claimant had first worked for the Carrier under a different name from 1973 to 1974. His employment name then was Julian Moriel Chavez.

 Approximately two years later, on May 28, 1976 Claimant filed a new employment application with Carrier but this time under the name of Vidal G. Guerrero.

 Carrier's employment application requires job applicants to indicate name changes. A specific question is incorporated in the form to elicit this information and the manner by which such change was effectuated. Claimant did not detail the fact particulars underlying his name change, but instea "indicate any change of name during lifetime


It was a wilful measured response to an explicit and unambiguous question.

 This Board, pursuant to its appellate responsibility has carefully reviewed the investigative transcript to insure that Carrier strictly observed administrative due process standards. We find nothing in the record, after this consummate examination that indicates the investigation was inconsistent with the requirements of Agreement Rule 24. On the contrary, we find that Claimant was provided ample opportunity to conduct an effective affirmative defense.

 This Board has long held that employes who falsify employment applications are subject to dismissal despite lapses of time between the dates of the application and the dates of discovery. See for example Third Division Awards 4391, 14274, 18103.

 The record clearly shows that Claimant committed a very serious offense. It was a wilful. manifestation which created an employment relationship predicated upon fraud and deceit. The law has invariably held such transactions to be revokable. Accordingly, we are compelled under the particular facts and circumstances herein to deny the claim. We will not discuss Claimant's arrest by federal investigation authorities, except to note judicially that this matter is being considered in another fbxam. We do note parenthetically that Carrier failed to include in its submission the falsified employment application.

        FINDIAGSs 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 u, 1934;

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

        That the Agreement was not violated,

                  Award Number 22369 Page 3

                  Docket Number W-22454

                  A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                  NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                  d~By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of March 1979.