. Or








PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: I was improperly and unlawfully discharged in violation of the labor agreement.
OPINION OF BOARD: The record shows that the Claimant (Petitioner herein)
 had been an employe of the Carrier since July 8, 1968,
 when he was hired as a Track Laborer. He resigned that job on September 11,
 1968, to return to school, and was rehired by the Carrier in the same
 capacity on June 2, 1969. On October 1, 1969, he transfered from the
 Maintenance of Way Department to the Transportation Department, where he
 started as a Porter, a job covered by the Agreement between the Carrier and
 the Clerks' Organization. From that time Claimant had worked in various
 clerical capacities until February 17, 1983, when he was assigned to the
 position of Scrap Cutter in the Purchases and Material Department, which
 position is filled from Clerks' Seniority District No. 17.
On March 22, 1983, Claimant was notified by Certified Mail in letter from Carrier's Director-Purchases and Materials:




Carrier's General Rule (T) B, paragraphs 2, 6, and 7, referred to in the letter of March 22, 1983, read:





                    Docket Number MS-25631


              2. Dishonesty.


                6. Engaging in business or other activities contrary to the interest of the Company.


                7. Absence without permission as well as unjustified or excessive absences."


The hearing scheduled for April 6 was postponed and conducted on April 8, 1983. Claimant was present throughout the hearing and was represented by two Organization Representatives, the Division Chairman and the Vice General Chairman. A transcript of the hearing has been made a part of the record. From our review, we find that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. On April 11, 1983, Claimant was notified of his dismissal from service, following which claim in his behalf was initiated by the Organization Representatives, asking that Claimant's record be cleared of the charge and that he be restored to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and that he be compensated for all loss of wages, and made whole for medical and hospital services. The claim was appealed to Carrier's highest designated officer of appeal, but failed of settlement. On January 20, 1984, Claimant filed with this Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Hoard notice to file an Ex Parte Submission covering his unadjusted dispute with the Carrier.
In the hearing conducted on April 8, 1983, substantial evidence was presented that Claimant was employed as a school teacher for the Pittsburgh Public Schools, and that his work record with the school system, which was introduced into the hearing, indicated that Claimant had worked as a teacher when laying off with the Carrier and vice versa. It was developed that permission granted to Claimant to be off was based on his alleged personal illness and did not extend to his employment elsewhere. The evidence showed that Claimant marked off sick with the Carrier on March 10, 1983, and worked that date as a school teacher; that he worked his regular assignment with the Carrier on March 11, 1983, a date on which the schools were closed; and that he again marked off sick with the Carrier on March 14, 15 and 16, 1983, and that on March 15 and 16, 1983, again worked as a school teacher. In the course of the hearing Claimant submitted a statement from his doctor dated March 12, 1983, stating that Claimant be excused from work on March 14, 15 and 16, 1983; however, Claimant admitted that he worked as a school teacher on March 15 and 16. Claimant also admitted that he had submitted time cards seeking pay from the Carrier on March 14, 15 and 16, 1983, on the basis that he was sick on each of the dates and was entitled to sick leave pay under the Collective
 Bargaining Agreement.,
                    Award Number 25587 Page 3

                    Docket Number MS-25631


The submission of time cards seeking to collect sick leave pay for days Claimant was working as a school teacher was entirely inproper and, in itself, would justify dismissal.
It was also established in the hearing, that Claimant's application for employement contained the statement:
            "If my application for employment is approved, I agree that subsequent failure on my part to perform as a full time employee by accepting all work available to me by virtue of my seniority or position on the roster may be treated as grounds for dismissal."


Based upon the evidence in the hearing, Claimant's dismissal was warranted. It is clear that he engaged in outside employnent during the assigned hours of his regular assignment. See Awards Nos. 19933, 12438 and 20174, as well as Award No. 28 of Public Law Board No. 1300, all of chich are set forth in the record. There is no proper basis for the Board to interfere with the discipline imposed by the Carrier.
            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 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 Agreement was not violated.


                          AWARD


            Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of August 1985.