(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Bnployes PARTIES 10 DISPUTE: (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood thatt

 (1) The dismissal of Foreman S. B. Bragg for alleged violation
 of Rules 176 and 181 was arbitrary, unreasonable, without
 Just and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to the alleged offense
 (System File A-9331).

OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves the serious charge of using Carrier's
 credit card for the unauthorized purchase of gasoline for
 use in an employe's personal vehicle.

 The claimant, Mr. S. B. Bragg, a 12-year veteran employs of the Carrier, was employed as Track Foreman of Gang No. 252, headquartered at York, Alabama. On January 4, 1979, claimant was dismissed from service of the Carrier by the following notice:

Formal investigation of the charges was held on January 25, 1979. Claimant was represented by his General Chairman. Copy of the transcript of the investigation was made a part of the record. Claimant was formally dismissed from the service of
Claimant forthrightly testified in the investigation that he had been using Carrier's Texaco Credit Card to purchase gasoline for his personal vehicle for five or six years. Thus, there is no question that claimant was using Carrier's credit to purchase gasoline for his privately owned vehicle as charged.


This forthright statement of claimant deserves a careful
 scrutiny engaging in this rather stran
 of the reasons for enge practice which prevailed for a period of five or six years.

 Claimant contends, in his testimony, that he followed this practice upon instructions from his supervisors when using his privately owned vehicle in the service of the Carrier rather than turn in auto mileage. During this five or six year period claimant testified he worked under the supervision of four Roadmasters; Bill Herald, Bill Koehrer, Cecil Roberts and W. E. Hance. He used the credit card in the manner charged while working under all of these Roadmasters except Koehrer, who had instructed him to turn in milea record shows Roadmaster Hance, the Carrier Officer who brought the charges against claimant, had supervision over this territory for one year at the time the charges were filed. Claimant testified that during this one-year period he used his privately owned vehicle to transport members of his gang, materials and tools from time to time. Roadmaster Hance testified that he was aware of this use of claimant's auto but stated "a lot of it was not necessary." There was a per the Carrier's truck was out of service and claimant used his vehicle. Hance testified that under normal circumstances when the Carrier's truck was out of service they rented a truck to replace it but it was not done in this instance. It appears to the Board that the Carrier acquiesced to the use of claimant's personal vehicle since it apparently was convenient to the service.

 on the surface the investigation appears to have been fair and impartial. Under Rule 91 of the Agreement between the parties, it is the Carriers obligation to afford the accused a fair and impartial investigation. The record discloses claimant contending that either Roadmaster Herald or Roberts, or both, instructed him to use Carrier's credit card in this manner rather than claim mileage. The Carrier's hearing officer, in order to fully comply with Rule 91 and assure the accused of a fair and impartial investigation, should have made an effort to obta even if it had been necessary to recess the investigation. It 18 the

 Carrier's responsibility and obligation under the rule to develop all the facts including those which may not be beneficial to it.

 On the other hand, claimant had a responsibility to inform Roadmaster Hance, when he became his supervisor, of this credit card arrangement before conti
                    Award Number 23097 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-23162


The Board, after careful study of the entire record, finds the discipline excessive. We, therefore, award the reinstatement of claimant with full seniority and all other rights unimpaired. However, in view of claimant's failure to inform his supervisor of this credit card arrangement, the "without back pay" penalty is applied. This Award should be made apart of claimant's personal record.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon
 the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 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 discipline was excersive.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained !,n accordance with the Opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS'LMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: _ ..
 Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of December 1980.