Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BARD Award No. 27748
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27962
 89-3-87-3-497
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Charlotte Gold when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Union Pacific Railroad Company

On behalf of D. G. Davis for restoration to service and payment of all time lost beginning April 25, 1986, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly Rule 68, when it did not afford him with a fair and impartial investigation on May 2, 1986 and assessed him with excessive discipline. Carrier file No. 013-220-D."

 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.

Claimant was discharged from Carrier's service on March 22, 1985, for transporting Company fuel in his personal truck and selling it for personal gain. Claimant was reinstated on a leniency basis, with the understanding that he would be a probationary employee for twelve months and that any incident of theft would caus
On April 24, 1986, Claimant was notified to attend an investigation into his alleged violation of his reinstatement agreement. Specifically, Carrier contended that Carrier property was discovered at Claimant's home on April 23, 1986, during an investigation into a theft from a Carrier van. Claimant was not authorized to have the items in his possession.
 Form 1 Award No. 27748
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-27962
 89-3-87-3-497

 The Board has reviewed the entire record of the case, including the transcript of the investigation. That record reveals that there was sufficient probative evidence pr the Organization maintains that Claimant was unaware of Carrier's policy regarding the use of Carrie Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad, we note that Carrier's dismissal letters call for the return of all Carrier property. Thus, Claimant was on notice, at least by 1985, that he had no right to have Carrier property in his possession.

 Claimant's violation of the reinstatement agreement is clear. Under the circumstances, we have no alternative but to uphold Carrier's decision.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of March 1989.