NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Locket Number MS®24761
Tedford E. Schoonover, Referee
(James J. Jury
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Norfolk and Western Railway Company (Lake Region)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: °This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of
National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my intention to file
an ex pane submission on September .l, 1982, covering an unadjusted dispute
between me and the Norfolk and Western Railway Company involving the question of
the unfair termination of myself without sufficient cause.R
OPINION OF BOARD: The claimant was employed by the Carrier May 10, 1978
as a gas welder, and on June 19, 1980 occupied position as
welder with headquarters at Conneaut, Ohio. His dismissal from service was by
letter dated July 29, 1980 based on investigation held on July 17, 1980, to
determine his responsibility in connection with the following:
"'*** attempt to misuse NW credit card #00526500172460 which is
assigned to N&W vehicle ?188 which was in your charge to secure cash
for your personal use at Ray°s Pennzoil between the hours of 4:00 PM
and 5:00 PM on June 19, 1980 at Bellevue, Ohio."
Rule 22(a) of the applicable labor agreement requires that an employe
may not be disciplined without a fair and impartial investigation and that he
may be assisted by representatives of his choice. The record shows such an
investigation was held, including a hearing on July 17, 1980. Claimant was
notified of the hearing and was represented by a duly designated officer of the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, the designated collective bargaining
representative of the craft or class of employes involved. There is no claim
that the hearing was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
Evidence adduced at the hearing supports the charge with substantial
evidence .including affidavits from an attendant at the gas station and also the
owner. Both stated the claimant attempted to use the N&W credit card to obtain
cash and list it an the purchase ticket as a gas purchase. His attempt to
obtain cash in this manner was refused and the incident reported to Carrier
authorities.
Dishonesty in any form is a serious offense and theft or embezzlement
has long been considered a dismissal offense. A Carrier should be able to rely
on the honesty and integrity of its employes. No better example of this
principle is available than this case where the claimant was entrusted with a
motor vehicle. needed in his work and a credit card to be used for its operation.
Evidence supports his betrayal of the trust the Carrier placed in him.
Award Number 24567 Page 2
Locket Number MS-24761
There is no evidence that Carrier acted in an arbitrary or capricious
manner or that the labor agreement was violated in the dismissal action.
Claimant was accorded a duly constituted investigation as required by the
Agreement and the evidence adduced supported the allegation. The function of
this Board was well stated by Judge J. S. Parker in Award 5032 of this same
Division as follows:
"*** Our function in discipline cases is not to substitute our
judgment for the company or 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 some
substantial evidence to sustain a finding of guilty. Once that
question is decided in the affirmative the penalty imposed for the
violation is a matter which rests .in the sound discretion of the
. Company and we are not warranted in disturbing it unless we can say it
clearly appears from the record that its action with respect thereto
was so unjust, unreasonable or arbitrary as to constitute an abuse of
that discretion. ***" (Underscore ours)
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, afater 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 nnployes 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:
Nancy J!'DSV6r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of November, 1983.