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 was regularly assigned as a Red cap at the Los Angeles passenger station.

On June 25, 1991, the Claimant was instructed to report at 9:00 A.M., July 2, 1991, for a formal Investigation to determine whether he...

"...on June 8, 1991 allegedly charged passenger Pamela weir $15.00 for excess baggage and never remitted the monies to Amtrak, thereby depriving Amtrak of revenue."

Subsequently, the Investigation was postponed and rescheduled for July 25, 1991.

After carefully examining the transcript of the Investigation, we conclude the Claimant as well as another Carrier witness confirmed that a passenger on the train to' Seattle had excess baggage. It was also confirmed that the passenger paid the Claimant $15.00 and that money was not remitted to the carrier. The question is whether the Claimant received a tip or collected the fee for excess baggage. There is no question the passenger had excess baggage, and that the Claimant knew the cost for the excess baggage was $15.00. The Board feels that this was more than mere coincidence. The passenger thought she was paying for the excess baggage, but the money was not remitted to the Carrier.

While the passenger was not present at the Investigation, a written statement by her was made part of the transcript. The organization objected that it was not allowed to cross examine the passenger. Even though it has been well established by this Board, as well as other tribunals, that statements from non-employees are acceptable as evidence, the basic facts of her statement are not in conflict.

With regard to the degree of discipline assessed, the record reveals that Claimant was dismissed effective August 2, 1991. However, by letter dated May 8, 1992, the Director Labor Relations advised the General Chairman that the Carrier was reinstating Claimant to service. Under date of May 18, 1992, the General Chairman informed the Carrier that such action was a unilateral action on its part, and that the Claim for backpay would be

progressed to arbitration, thus preserving the Organization's right to progress the Claim to this Board.

It is the conclusion of the Board that the charges against the Claimant were proven and no further modification of the discipline assessed is warranted.

A W A R D