Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION



    The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert erkovich when award was rendered.


      (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen TIES TO DISPUTE:

                  (The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company


STATEMENT F CLAIM:
        "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of ailroad Signalmen on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF):


      Clai on behalf of C. E. Davis, Jr., for reinstatement to service n

      payment of lost wages, skill differential, benefits and expenses incurred

      and with all reference to this matter removed from his personal record i

      connection with an investigation held on doer 11, 00, account

      Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule ,

      when it imposed hars and excessive discipline against the Claimant

      without meeting the burden proving the charges. Carrier's File . 35

      l 0011. General Chairman's File o. 1-003- - 0-C. BRS File Case

      .112- ."


      INS: .


      The Third Division of the Adjustment or, upon the whole record the

.evidence, finds tat:

 The carrier r carriers and a employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within a meaning the ail Labor Act, s rove June 21,1 34.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 For 1 ar .7
 age Docket . 371
 -3- - -1 0
 Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
 The Claimant was first hired by the Carrier on September 1 ,1997 after which he
 as assigned to a Signal Construction Gang: In that capacity the Carrier issued to t e
 Claimant corporate credit card that he used for lodging and meal expenses. In arc
 1999 he successfully bid on a Maintainer's position at Willow Springs, Illinois, with a
 headquarters in that location. Thus, he was no longer required to spend time away fro
 headquarters. Despite that fact, the Claimant continued to use the corporate car for
 lodging expenses in the amount of slightly ore than $5,500.00 until a was discovered
 ore than one year later. a was subsequently subject to Investigation and dismissal fro
 service: The record reflects that when the Claimant received the corporate card it s

 accompanied by instructions governing its use, but that a used the card for lodging e needed a place to stay after he could no longer stay with friends after being assigned
 illow Springs, Illinois.

 In our view the Carrier et its burden of proof. There is o question that the Claimant used the card as alleged an that when a received the card it as accompanied y
 instructions governing its se. To the extent that the Organization argues that the Claimant was unaware f these restrictions, we find that argument unpersuasive. Rather, e find it highly unlikely tat an employee who was working in the field, and who therefore had an entitlement to use of the card, would a unaware that he could not use tat card once his work kept i in a fixed location.

                        AWARD


    Claim denied.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute i entie above, hereby orders to war favorable to the Clai ants) not be made.

                      TI L ST BOARD

                      Order f Third Division


ate t Chicago, Illinois, this t f October 2004.