A timely Investigation was held and Claimant was dismissed from service on June 4, 1992.

At the Investigation, a Leesville Police Lieutenant testified that after receiving an anonymous tip of someone removing cross ties from railroad property, the police went to the Rail Yards to investigate. Upon arrival, the Lieutenant testified to meeting Claimant at 9:55 P.M. who advised him that everything was all right; that they were just getting some of the cross ties "*** off of the old number nine ***". The police asked if Claimant had a permit and the response was negative. After contacting Claimant's Supervisor, the police believed the matter was to be resolved internally and left the property.

When the Investigation was held on May 14, 1992, ten weeks after the tie removing incident, Claimant's position was that his step-son had expressed interest in securing old cross ties and that he had advised the necessity of his step-son securing permission to do so. On the date of the incident, after attempting to contact his step-son, Claimant discovered he was down at the yards securing crossties and that he did not have a permit. Claimant contends he had just arrived at the scene with the intent to chase his step-son away since he did not have a permit when the Leesville Police arrived.

Claimant's story would have been plausible if it concurred with that of the police Lieutenant's testimony, but it does not.

Furthermore, Claimant made no effort to have the 80 to 100 ties already loaded on the trailer by his step-son to be unloaded.

Suffice to say, Carrier has sustained the burden of proof necessary to substantiate the charges it had filed against the Claimant. Even a spotless, squeaky clean record cannot be considered as a reason to lessen the discipline assessed because of theft. Theft is theft regardless of who commits it and it is a serious matter warranting the ultimate discipline.

AWARD