For 1 TI L T BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 and o.72
 Docket . S -7 7
 04-3--3-192

 The Third Division consisted of the regular r members and in addition Referee
 Peter . Meyers when awar was rendered.
(Canadian Nation allIllinois Central Railroad 'STATEMENT F CL





e Tit Division the Adjustment Board, u t hole recor all the
 evidence, fins tat:

 The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
 are resectively carrier r and employee within the meanina of the Railway Labor Act,
 s r v1, .
 Form 1 Award o. 37243
 aga 2 Docket o. SG-37237
 04-3-02-3-192

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.




n April 4, 2001, the Claimant was notified to attend a formal Investigation to "determine whether or not you improperly made use of the Railroad's credit when you obtained lodging at the Baymont Inn on the evenings between January 15, 2001 and JanuarY 17; 2001, JaauarY 22, 2001 and January 24, 2001, January 29, 2001 and January 31, 2001, February 5, 2001 to February 7, 2001, February 2, 2001 to February 2, 2001 and April 1, 2001 to April 3, 2001, including a long distance personal phone call." The Investigation was conducted on April 10 and April 27, 2001. As a result of the Investigation, the Claimant was found guilty of the charge, and bY letter dated ay 7, 2001, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he was being issued a 1-day suspension. The Organization thereafter filed a claim on the Claimant's behalf, challenging the Carrier's decision to suspend the Claimant. The Carrier denied the claim.


The Carrier initiallY contends that there is no doubt that the Claimant as
 guil of violating Rule f the Maintenance of ay Rules. The Carrier
 emphasizes that the address that the Claimant had on file was within 0 miles of the
 aymoat Inn, which is the designated headquarters point. During the Investigation,
 the Claimant stated that the address that the Carrier had on file as not correct,
 and he had not changed it because a did not have tie. The Carrier emphasizes
 that employees are instructed to notify the Carrier when their address changes,.

 s for the Organization's assertion that the Carrier faile to provide the
 Claimant with fair and impartial Investigation, the Carrier emphasizes tat a
 review of the Hearing transcript demonstrates that this is not true. There is o
 support for the Organization's argument that the Hearing was not fair an
 impartial because of the Carrier's "flip-flop" policy. The Organization has no
 rovided any evidence f misconduct y the Hearing Officer, let alone prejudicial
 misconduct. The Carrier maintains that the Hearing was fair and impartial, n
 the Organization has not provided any evidence to prove otherwise.
 For 1 r .7243


The issue is whether the Claimant had been isusin the Carrier's credit, and this clearly was proven in the Investigation. The Carrier argues that by along this accusation, the Organization is attempting to shift the focus away fro the fact that the Claimant is responsible for notifying the Carrier of any changes that occur in his permanent residence. The Carrier maintains that the Claimant is guilty as charged; and the discipline should stand.




reasonable. It is well documented that the Claimant has not been completely with the Carrier, and the discipline assessed is a result of his failure to a truthful
 with the Carrier about his residence. The Claimant s aware that in te five
 onths that a stated he resided in off an Estates, a as responsible for
 notifying the Carrier. The Carrier maintains that there is ndott the
 Claimant is guil as charged, and the discipline was warranted.

 The Carrier contends that the Claimant received fair and impartial
 Investigation, the Claimant did, in fact, violate the ides, and a discipline as
 arranted. The Carrier argues that it was proper to include the Claimant's past
 record, in that it served as a way to measure how much discipline should a assessed
 once it was proven that the Claimant a violated the ides. The Carrier asserts
 that in ligt of the Claimant's repeated role with adhering t the Carrier's
 policies a Rules, a was properly lined. a Carrier argues that the claim
 should a denied in its entirety.

The Organization initially contends tat the Carrier violate the Agreement

between parties, particularly Rule , en it filed trove the charges against

e Claimant, yet imposed discipline in the for f 1 - y suspension. The charge

against t Claimant, for using his Carrier-issue credit car for lodging, is

completely without eri. l11() clearly states that the y nt Inn s the

Claimant's headquarters an it further states tat t t
 ientitled to lodging if he is ore t 3 miles fro his residence. e
 rganization argues that the evidence demonstrates that the Claimant fully et
 tat criterion, ae never should been found guilty f any charge i is case.

 e Organization points. out that even after the Carrier' n Investigation
 rove tat the Claimant's residence s indeed than miles e
 For 1 .7



Claimant uil and assessed hi 1-day suspension.

The Organization argues that the Carrier failed teet its burden of proof, but instead se its decision to punish the Claimant on the lack of any evidence

all. The Carrier s obligated to establish its case and prove with substantial
 evidence that the Claimant violated its Rules. The Organization maintains that
 there is no basis for concluding that the Claimant committed punishable offense in
 this situation. The Organization asserts that it was arbitrary and unreasonable for
 the Carrier to find the Claimant guilty, and this clearly indicates that it derived the
 Claimant of fair and impartial Hearing. The Organization asserts that the
 Carrier violated the Claimant's rights under le 3 , and this cannot t be allowed to
 stand. The Carrier did not rove that the Claimant s guilty of y misconduct.

 The Organization emphasizes that the penal imposed against the Claimant
 makes it evident that the Carrier's sole intent was to uniste Claimant, rather
 than guide him in the performance of is or. The Organization argues that this
 constitutes n abuse of the Carrier's discretion. The Organization asserts that no
 discipline soul have been issued in is case t all, because the Claimant did not
 commit any violations. Organization ultimately that the inst clai
 shoul a sustaine in its entirety.
and we find them to be without merit.

 The oar reviewed the evidence an testimony in this case a find that
 there is sufficient evidence i the recor to support the fi ing that the Claimant
 as guilty violatin Carrier Rule en improperly a se of the
 railroad's credit by obtaining lodging at the Baymont Inn on various nights in
 January, February, n April 2 1.
iles s of the Baymont Inn, which was the designated headquarters point at issue.
 Rule 11 states:

For 1

e


ward . 7
 Docket . -
















The record reveals that there ere o emergency problems that
 ould allo the Claimant to stay in the hotel. Moreover, all of the evideshows,
 nce that the Claimant's listed address in Glendale Heights as no less to miles
 from the aymont -Inn - the headquarters point.

 e the Board has determined that there is suffcient evidence. the recor
 sprte guilty finding, we next turn, our attentio tt discipline
 imposed. The Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition oii line unless e
 1 its actions the been unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious.

that the issuance of a 16-day suspension to the Claimant was unreasonable,
 arbitrary, or cricius. Therefore, the claim ill l be denied.

 li i

 tl
 Form 1 Page 6

 Award .7
 ocet No. SG-37237
 -3- -3-1

 E

 This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby oers
 that n and favorable to the Claimants) not t be made.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 Order f Third Division

 ate t Chicago., Illinois, this 7th day of October

 04,