"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-11065) that:

1. Carrier violated the provisions of Rule 24 when on May 13, 1993, it held Claimant (Patrick Woods) from service pending a disciplinary investigation.

2. Carrier acted in an arbitrarv, capricious and unjust manner in violation of Rule 24 of the Agreement, when by notice of May 28, 1993, it assessed discipline of 'Termination from Service' against Claimant, pursuant to an investigation held on flay 21, 1993.

3. 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 limited to daily wages, holiday pay and overtime, had he not been held from service and had discipline not been assessed.

4. Carrier shall now expunge the charges and discipline from

Claimant's record.

5. Carrier shall now reimburse Claimant for any amounts paid by him for medical, surgical or dental expenses to the extent that such payments would be payable by the current insurance provided by the Carrier."

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and emplo_%ee «ithin 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 %sere given due notice of hearing thereon.

Following an Investigation on a charge that Claimant "attempted to a:tract information of a private and personal nature" from an Amtrak customer, discipline of dismissal was imposed. The Organization appealed the dismissal on a variety of grounds. It argued that Claimant was denied a fair and impartial Investigation when he was not afforded the opportunity to face his accuser - the testimony of the principle and only witness to the conversation was taken by telephone. Second, the Organization argued that there is no basis for the Hearing Officer to conclude that Claimant's testimony was less credible than that of the accuser. And third, the Organization contended that the evidence does not support the charges placed against Claimant.

The Carrier argued that Claimant's guilt was clearly established. Further, it was not improper to take testimony of a customer over the telephone, and dismissal was appropriate in the circumstances, noting that Claimant's short service does not warrant mitigation.

The Board concludes, on this record, that the Carrier has not established sufficient cause to discipline the Claimant. We carefully studied the testimony taken by telephone of the complaining witness and conclude that her statements, considered In the worst tight for the Claimant, simply do not warrant dismissal. Clearly the Hearing Officer was without any basis to credit the testimony of the complaining witness under the circumstances in which it was offered. The discipline wifl not be allowed to stand.

ANVA RD