Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27291
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26651
 88-3-85-3-394
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The discipline (reprimand) imposed upon Mr. C. C. Rhodes for alleged responsibility in connection with the falsification of PA-15 report dated December 17, 1982 and alleged failure to adhere to Conrail Order AD 0.28 dated May 5, 1982 was unjust, unreasonable and in violation of the Agreement (System Docket CR-971D).

 (2) The reprimand imposed upon the claimant shall be expunged from his record."

 FINDINGS:

 The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

In 1982, Claimant was working as Assistant Division Engineer at Indianapolis, Indiana. This job is a Carrier official position to which Claimant had been promoted f Claimant was not subject to or covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Carrier and the Organization.

 Sometime in 1982, Claimant directed Delco Excavating, a vendor with whom Carrier had a right of way clean-up contract, to remove some old ties in Subdivision No. 2 on the Indiana-Cleveland main line. After Delco Excavating had performed most of this work, Claimant learned that a different contractor had been award the subcontract to clean up Subdivision No. 2. Upon discovering his error, Claimant i work actually performed.
 Form 1 Award No. 27291
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26651
 88-3-85-3-394

 Carrier determined that Delco Excavating held the subcontract for clean-up work in Subdivision No. 1, not Subdivision No. 2. He also determined that there were unexpended funds under the Subdivision No. 1 contract awarded to Delco Excavating. Claimant instructed his subordinates to arrange for payment of Delco Excavating voucher to show that the work performed in Subdivision No. 2 had been performed in Subdivision No. 1. On the basis of this voucher, dated November 22, 1982, Delco Excavating was paid for the work it actually had performed in Subdivision No. 2.

 Approximately one year after the foregoing incident, the Chief Special Auditor determined that Delco Excavating had been paid from Subdivision No. I funds for work Special Auditor interviewed Claimant on January 31, 1984. During that interview Claimant freely described the transaction and surrounding circumstances. On February 24, 1 setting forth all of the foregoing details.

 The record does not show what the Chief Special Auditor reported to his supervisors, or to whom he reported the incident. Over repeated objections of Claimant's represe any questions relating to these issues. The Carrier Hearing officer refused to direct the witness to answer. We do know that subsequent to, and manifestly because of, that repo
Claimant exercised his seniority on April 13, 1987, and four days later Carrier served him with notice to attend a hearing on April 25, 1987, on the following charges:



Following the hearing, Carrier imposed a written reprimand upon Claimant and made a permanent entry in his personal record that he "violated Company policy by participating in the development of improper charges."
 Form 1 Award No. 27291
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26651
 88-3-85-3-394

 We have reviewed this record with extreme care and come away absolutely convinced that the disci Even if arguendo the disciplinary investigation was not void from the beginning due to time l impartial hearing. The chief witness against him, the Chief Special Auditor, repeatedly refused to answer relevant and material questions put by Claimant's representative. Despite frequent objections by the representative and repeated requests that the wit only declined to direct the witness to answer but endorsed the witnesses refusal. Finally, notwithst the record evidence does not support a conclusion that Claimant participated in overcharging, payment for services not rendered or any other "improper charges." At worst, he failed to follow strict formal accounting procedures for paying a subcontractor for work performed. But there is not one iota of evidence that he dishonestly "falsified" documents or participated in the development of "improper charges." Similarly, the record evidence is barren of support for the charge that "he failed to adhere to Conrail Order AD0.28." The disciplinary representative of Claimant is an arbitrary and unreasonable escalation of form over substance and an abuse of managerial discretion which must be set aside.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:

        Nancy J. -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of August 1988.