This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
At the time of the events leading to his discipline, the Claimant was assigned as a Signal Maintainer with headquarters at Mulberry, Florida. From June 16 through June 23, 2003, he charged five days of expenses for lodging at as inn located in Bartow, Florida. At the time he occupied a point headquartered maintenance position that did not pay lodging expenses. By letter of August 4, 2003 the Claimant was notified to attend a formal Investigation in connection with his unauthorized use of his CLC card on the foregoing dates. Following the Investigation which was held on August 13, 2003, the Claimant was assessed a 60calendar day suspension.
The Organization appealed the discipline by letter of September 8, 2003. It maintained that the Carrier had not carefully instructed the Claimant regarding the proper procedures for using the CLC card. Moreover, it noted that the Claimant offered to make immediate restitution to the Carrier once he had been made aware that the charges were not authorized. The appeal was denied on September 30, 2003. The Carrier contended that the discipline was not only justified, but under the circumstances, was quite lenient. The matter was appealed up to and including conference on the property on November 12, 2003, after which time it remained in dispute.
The Carrier points out that there is no doubt that the Claimant made unauthorized charges for lodging using the CLC card on the dates in question. The transcript of the Investigation confirms that fact. When questioned, the Claimant admitted that he was "unsure" of whether he had permission to charge his lodging on the card, and had not asked his supervisor whether such a charge was authorized. Testimony at the Investigation by Carrier officers established that there was no clear written policy or special orientation to inform employees of when they were or were not authorized to use the CLC card. Apparently, however, the Claimant gave himself the benefit of the doubt. There is no indication in the record that his supervisor was unavailable to clarify the Claimant's authority - or lack thereof - the Claimant simply did not ask. Form 1 Award No. 38223
The Board notes, however, that this is not a matter of an employee intentionally using the Carrier's funds for his personal advantage. The only time he used the CLC card was when he was staying at his work location. Moreover, in the end, the Carrier incurred no expense, because the Claimant made restitution. Under the circumstances we find the discipline of 60 days excessively harsh. There is no showing of intent to defraud the Carrier and certainly no personal gain to the Claimant. Thus, we find that the Claimant's discipline should be reduced to a 30 calendar day suspension. We would caution the Claimant severely, however, that in such matters, he would be well served to confirm that he has - or does not have - authorization to use his CLC card before doing so in the future.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.