PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

(1) . The dismissal of Bridge Mechanic D. R. Heathcock for use of 'Exxon Credit Card 409-350-0124 assigned to SCL vehicle 611656 to purchase gasoline pumped into your personal vehicle' on May 8, 1980 was without just and sufficient cause and an abuse of justice and discretion by the Carrier (System File C-4(1,3)-DRH/12-39 (80-62) G).

(2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record be cleared and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed by Carrier as a Traveling Metal Bridge
Mechanic. During the week of May 8, 1980, Claimant was assisting Bridge Gang 7817 in the Tampa, Florida, area. Claimant was responsible for the vehicle assigned to him, identified as SCL Vehicle No. 611656.











        of this matter, however, it will be your responsibility to arrange for their notification and attendance at the hearing. Your personal record will be reviewed at said meeting.


        Inasmuch as violation of Operating Rule G-1 and Safety Rule 18 '... will subject the offender to dismissal', you were held out of service beginning on May 9, 1980, pending results of the hearing."


The investigation was postponed and conducted on June 4., 1980, following which Claimant was notified of his dismissal on June 10, 1980. A copy of the transcript of the investigation has been made a part of the record. The rules cited in the letter of charge were read into the investigation, and are also set forth in the Carrier's submission. We see no necessity for repeating them here.

About 3:00 P.M., May 8, 1980, the owner of an Exxon Service Station called Carrier's Division Engineer's office in Tampa and reported that an individual in a private vehicle had purchased gasoline with an SCI. credit card. Investigation by Carrier officers developed that the gasoline had been purchased by Claimant and was pumped into a truck bearing Alabama license PHJ 120 instead of the vehicle to which the credit card was assigned and the vehicle for which Claimant was responsible.

In the investigation substantial evidence was introduced that Claimant did use the SCI. credit card to purchase gasoline for his private vehicle. Claimant admitted as much. However, he contended that the Company vehicle assigned to him was overheating and that he used his personal vehicle in attempting to have the Company vehicle repaired, and that he did so on advice, or instructions, of his Supervisor. There is conflict between the statement of the Claimant as to just what was said in the telephone conversation with the Supervisor, the Supervisor stating that he was not aware that Claimant was going to use his personal vehicle for Company business, and that he did not authorize the use of same. The claimant testified that he was replenishing the gasoline that he had used from his personal vehicle on Company business.

It was also developed in the investigation, and Claimant so testified, that the normal procedure for reimbursement for the use of personal automobiles on Company business was to fill out an expense account and to turn in mileage.

The Carrier considered Claimant's action in using Company credit card to purchase same eighteen gallons of gasoline far his personal vehicle, under the circumstances involved, as an act of dishonesty. We, at the Board level, are not in position to say that such a conclusion by the Carrier was not justified or unwarranted. The Board has issued numerous awards upholding the dismissal of employes far dishonesty or attempts to defraud. Dismissal, under the circumstances here involved, was at the Carrier's discretion. The temptation to reduce the severe discipline is strong. However, the only reason for reducing the penalty would be on the basis of leniency, which addresses itself to the Carrier and not to this Board. The claim will be denied.
                      Award Number 24274 Page 3

                      Docket Number PEW-24553


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 Employe 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: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


By
        Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1983.