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 employe 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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant holds seniority as a welder, and has been in Carrier's service for 16 years. At the time of this dispute, Claimant was under the supervision of a Foreman who was on vacation. Form 1 Award No. 29602
Due to his senior status, Claimant was assigned to be the "leader" of his welding gang in the Foreman's absence. Claimant had fulfilled this assignment on previous occasions and was familiar with the various duties entailed, one of which was to fill out a Foreman's Field Labor Information Report (FFLR). The FFLR form is, among other things, a source pay document. This document is the basis of the dispute.
On December 21, 1989, the Track supervisor arrived at Griffith, Indiana to conduct a monthly safety meeting. The meeting, which was due to begin at 7:30 A.M., did not actually commence until 7:45 A.M., due to the Claimant's tardiness. When the Claimant arrived he stated that he had experienced car trouble. Further conversation ensued, and the Track Supervisor testified at the subsequent hearing that the dialogue was as follows:
In preparing the FFLR report at the end of the day, Claimant indicated he had worked the full eight hours for December 21, 1989. On January 11, 1990, Claimant was charged with:
Hearing was held on January 18, 1990. At that hearing, Claimant admitted to making out the aforementioned report, and following the hearing, the Carrier determined the Claimant had "knowingly and willfully falsified the labor information report for the purpose of obtaining a full day's pay to which he is not entitled." As a result, the Claimant was assessed 60 demerits. The Organization appealed the discipline.
The Organization protests that Claimant did not receive a fair and impartial hearing. In particular, it protests that the Carrier considered Claimant's prior discipline record in assessing the discipline. With respect to the merits of the case, the Organization asserts that the Claimant did not falsify the FFLR report, but merely was following the Track Supervisor's instructions "to forget it." The organization maintains that the Claimant would not have submitted the full eight hours but for the conversation between him and the Track Supervisor. Further, the Organization contends that the Claimant was not familiar enough with the form, and therefore, "all of the paperwork Claimant submitted should have been double-checked by a Foreman" which would have resulted in the error being corrected.
For its part, Carrier contends that Claimant received a fair and impartial hearing. Moreover, Carrier maintains that Claimant knowingly submitted a fraudulent claim, in "clear violation of General Rule F.3." Further, the Carrier asserts that the Claimant knew precisely how to reflect his true time on the form as he had done so on the same form within the prior week. Finally the carrier asserts that Claimant could have been dismissed for his actions, and that the imposition of 60 demerits was, in fact, lenient under the circumstances.
There is no evidence on the record to support the Organization's assertion that Claimant failed to receive a fair hearing. While the Carrier may not rely on an employee's past employment record as proof of current alleged misconduct, it certainly may do so when deciding the quantum of discipline, once the misconduct has been proven.
A review of the transcript convinces us that the Claimant has taken a statement by the Track Supervisor out of context, and used it to his advantage. When asked to verify his statement concerning Christmas, the Track Supervisor replied: Form 1 Award No. 29602
This Board finds the Train Supervisor's statement credible and Carrier's argument persuasive. Further, this is not a matter of first impression. In Third Division Award 18087, the Board ruled:
Document falsification, particularly by an employee in a supervisory position, is a serious offense and one which the carrier cannot condone (Third Division Award 29146). Accordingly, we see no basis for sustaining this claim.