Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29334
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29577
92-3-90-3-533
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-10515) that:
(CARRIER'S TILE N0. TCU-D-3329; TCU FILE N0. 393-DO-030-D).
1. Carrier acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and violated
Rule It24 of the Agreement, when by notice of February 22, 1990, it assessed
the discipline of 'termination from service' against Claimant Jose Lujan.
2. Carrier shall now reinstate Claimant to service with seniority
rights unimpaired, and compensate Claimant an amount equal to what he could
have earned, including but not limit to daily wages, overtime and holiday pay,
had discipline not been assessed.
3. Carrier shall now expunge the charges and discipline from Claimant's record.
4. Carrier shall now reimburse Claimant for any amounts paid by Claimant for medical, surgical o
would be payable by the current insurance provided by the Carrier."
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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon:
At the time of the incident at issue, Claimant was employed as a
Baggageman at Carrier's passenger terminal in Denver, Colorado. He had been a
Baggageman for nine years. On November 14, 1989, Claimant assisted a passenger, Mr. Joseph Livio,
Form 1 Award No. 29334
Page 2 Docket No. CL-29577
92-3-90-3-533
Claimant then called Mr. Livio back from the ticket office to the baggage room
and requested a $5.00 fee for use of the wheelchair. Mr. Livio gave the Claimant the $5.00 fee and r
Upon his arrival in Los Angeles, Mr. Livio contacted Amtrak on
November 19, 1989, concerning one piece of his luggage which had not reached
his final destination. His inquiry was forwarded to the District Supervisor
for Amtrak, Mr. Michael Flitton, who was stationed in Salt Lake City. On
November 20, 1989, Mr. Flitton called Mr. Livio. During that telephone conversation the issue of the
As a result of Flitton's investigation, which took place over approximately three weeks' time, he di
not been recorded through the Carrier's accounting procedures, nor had Carrier's "original" copy of
the other baggage room receipts from November 14, 1989. At Mr. Flitton's
request, Mr. Livio furnished him with copies of his baggage Claim checks and
his copy of the General Purpose Receipt indicating a $5.00 charge for use of a
wheelchair.
On or about December 1, 1989, Flitton contacted Claimant concerning
the incident. Claimant acknowledged that he had charged Mr. Livio $5.00 for
the wheelchair, but said that he had misinterpreted the "asterisk" in the list
of baggage charges, which exempted wheelchairs from the $5.00 fee. He also
acknowledged that Mr. Livio had given him a $5.00 tip. Claimant further
stated that on the day in question he had wrapped the $5.00 fee in the receipt
and placed it in the cash drawer.
By letter of December 26, 1989, Carrier notified Claimant to appear
for a formal Investigation concerning his alleged violation of Rules "F" and
"K" of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Rules of Conduct:
"in that, while on duty as a Baggageman at Denver,
Colorado, on November 14, 1989, you charged a
passenger a service charge of $5.00 which you
failed to remit, thereby depriving the Corporation
of said revenue."
The Investigation was held on February 13, 1990. By letter of
February 22, 1990, the Claimant was dismissed from Carrier's service. The
Organization appealed Claimant's dismissal up to and including the Director of
Labor Relations, and the issue is properly before this Board for adjudication.
Following the Organization's October 17, 1990 Notice of Intent to the Board,
Carrier unilaterally reinstated the Claimant to service on a last chance basis
effective November 30, 1990, with seniority rights unimpaired, but without pay
for time lost.
It is Carrier's position that dishonesty in any form is an offense
which warrants dismissal. Carrier notes that Claimant admitted collecting
Form 1 Award No. 29334
Page 3 Docket No. CL-29577
92-3-90-3-533
$5.00 from Mr. Livio for use of the wheelchair on November 14, 1989, despite
Carrier policy to the contrary, and cannot account for the missing cash or
receipt. It points out that Claimant had more than nine years experience in
baggage handling and related duties, and urges that Claimant's alleged
ignorance of the baggage policy concerning wheelchairs is not credible.
In Claimant's defense, the Organization maintains that Carrier has
not met its burden of proof concerning the charges against Claimant. The
Organization suggests that the Claimant's explanation of what may have
happened to the $5.J0 and the receipt (that someone removed it from the
baggage counter area) casts serious doubt upon Carrier's position. It urges
that in the absence of more concrete evidence of misdeed, the discipline
assessed should be revoked and Claimant made whole for all wages lost.
Testimony on the record before the Board from Mr. Flitton and Mr.
Livio establish clearly that Claimant erroneously charged the latter for use
of a wheelchair. :n light of the Claimant's long experience as a baggage
handler, his protested ignorance of Carrier's policy in that regard is difficult to credit. Moreover
what he did with the $5.00 and the receipt (put it in the drawer, or slid
it under the daily Log book), neither of which is substantiated by any oral or
written evidence on this record. Such explanations must be viewed as selfserving at best, and cannot
evidence against Claimant.
It is a well-established arbitral tradition, and this Board has held
in past Awards, that theft of any magnitude is a serious breach of an employee's responsibility to h
that the Board should modify Carrier's assessment of discipline in this case.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. POV
-Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, alinois, this 24th day of July 1992.