Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 44367 Docket No. SG-45825
21-3-NRAB-00003-200001
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Kathryn A. VanDagens when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(BNSF Railway Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
“Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the BNSF Railway Company:
Claim on behalf of G.M. Taylor, for reinstatement to service with compensation for all time lost, including overtime pay, with all rights and benefits unimpaired, and with any mention of this matter removed from his personal record, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen’s Agreement, particularly Rule 54, when it issued the harsh and excessive discipline of dismissal against the Claimant, without providing a fair and impartial Investigation and without meeting its burden of proving the charges in connection with an Investigation held on August 14, 2018. Carrier's File No. 35-18-0027. General Chairman's File No. 18-040-BNSF-121-T. BRS File Case No. 16071-BNSF. NMB
Code No. 173.” FINDINGS:
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 employee within 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimant held the position of Signal Foreman in the Carrier’s Signal Department. On April 24, 2018, the Claimant was contacted by the Carrier’s Auditors concerning the Corporate Travel Card and some personal expenses submitted as company expenses between February 1, 2018 and March 31, 2018. Specifically, the Claimant was asked whether he had ever purchased alcohol with the BNSF corporate card, which the Claimant denied. When it was brought to the Claimant’s attention that he had used the card to purchase beer and claimed it as breakfast, he asked if he could reimburse the full amount, which he then did.
On April 27, 2018, the Claimant was given notice of an investigation in connection with the following charge:
“An investigation has been scheduled…for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility, if any, in connection with your alleged violation of BNSF Travel and Expense Policy between 2/1/2018 and 3/31/2018, when you allegedly used your Corporate Travel Card for personal purchases, and your alleged dishonesty when you fraudulently submitted personal purchases as company expenses.”
After a formal investigation on August 14, 2018, the Claimant was found in violation of MWOR 1.6, Conduct, and was dismissed from the Carrier’s service.
In a letter dated November 8, 2018, the Organization appealed the Carrier’s discipline. The Carrier responded to and denied the appeal. Following discussion of this dispute in conference, the positions of the parties remained unchanged, and this dispute is now properly before the Board for adjudication.
The Carrier contends that it has presented substantial evidence of the Claimant’s violation. The Claimant admitted that he violated the rules, so the Carrier contends that it need not present further proof. The Carrier contends that the Claimant was dishonest when he tried to hide his alcohol purchase by labeling it as a meal expense.
The Carrier contends that dishonesty is a stand-alone dismissible offense under the Carrier’s Policy for Employee Performance Accountability (“PEPA”). The
Carrier contends that the Claimant’s repayment for the personal charges does not excuse his violation of the rule concerning dishonesty.
The Organization contends that the Carrier’s Expense policy provides, in part, that if an employee was paid for an expense not eligible for reimbursement, the employee must reimburse the Carrier. The Organization contends that the Claimant reimbursed the Carrier for this ineligible expense once it was brought to his attention.
The Organization contends that the imposed penalty of dismissal for a first-time offense is overly harsh given the Claimant’s error and reimbursement. The Organization contends that the Carrier has not shown that the Claimant was dishonest, only that he made an error. The Organization contends that the Claimant was a 13-year employee at the time and was experiencing difficult personal issues, which he has since addressed.
The Carrier has shown with substantial evidence that the Claimant was dishonest when he picked up a twelve-pack of alcohol and charged it on his corporate card and then labeled the purchase as “breakfast.” the Claimant admitted that he did so and has not claimed that he did so by accident. Where there is an admission of guilt, there is no need for further proof. This Board finds that sufficient evidence exists to support the findings against the Claimant. Furthermore, by covering up his illegitimate purchase and labeling it as an appropriate expense, the Claimant was dishonest.
Numerous awards have confirmed the reasonableness of the Carrier’s PEPA categorizing dishonesty as a standalone dismissible offense. From the record, it appears that the Claimant had a long service record without blemish prior to these events. He may have been exhibiting some uncharacteristic behaviors due to circumstances unrelated to his employment. However, leniency is the prerogative of the Carrier, not this Board. The penalty of dismissal was neither arbitrary nor excessive.
Claim denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of January 2021.