AWARD No. 186
 Case No. 220

 tUBLIC LAwi BO:%kD

 PARTIE;1) A'mIISON, TC:P::1CI~ AND SAa~TA FL R:i1L.yAY L.vi:i'Ai f0
 DISPUTE) ) BRt~Tf~,~y~

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Carrier's decision to rewove Saut-err Division Miscellaneous Machine Operator G. B. Burk as result of J~:adl invasti,dL,:n :·farzh 12, 1942 was injuat.

 2. That the Casrier now reinstate Claimant Burl: to his former position with seniority, vacation, allbenefit rights uxiimpaired and pay for wage loss beginning March 12, 1982 continuing dori.ard audlor otherwise made whole because a review of the tr;&ascripc .foes njt reveal that substantial evidence was introduced on record which indicated that claimant Burk was guilty of violating Rules 1:+, 16 a::J 29, General aules for the Guidance ox Employes, and even-is record contained substantial evidence indicating that claimant violated t::Carrier's rules heretobefore quoted, the Carrier's decision to re.ac-:e claimant is excessive and harsh discipline.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that the parties
 her° e a are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway
 Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute the claimant was assigned as a Southern Division t-ti::cellaneous Machine Operator. The claimant was charged with violati.:. Rules 14, 16 and 29, General Rules for the Guidance of Employees. The claimant was specifically charged with taking a company dump truck, AT 37673, for his own use on February 5, 1982 and keeping t11'4 truck until February 11, 1982 while assigned as machine operator ac Somerville, Texas. Pursuant to an investigation the claimant was found guilty and was dismissed from the service of tl.e Carrier.

 The Board has examined the transcript of record and finds that the claimant testified he did not have permission to take tie sump truck involved to his home, but on the atternoan of Friday, Februa_5, 1982 he did not have a way back to his vehicle which was in Temple, Texas and he simply took the company truci: to Uillsboro.

 The claimant admitted that he did not request permission to take t... truck and that he kept the truck at Hillsboro until Thursday, February 11, 1942. He testified that on February d, 9 and 10 he was lIillsboro, Texas at his parents' home at 700 Broadway. He furthe_ stated that he called in for permission to be off from February b


throw'.^. Fabruar·.y 10 but conceded that he did not tell either c_ the employees that he talked to that he has tce dump truck.

 T:.e evidence indicates that the claimant :.ad his own pick-up at Tenple, Texas but elected to take the Compary dump truck to the place where lie was staying in Hillsboro, Te:cas, which is 75 miles north of Temple, rather than to stop in'Temple and use his ounm pick-up truck. The claimant testified that the fuel pump was out on his pick-up, and he did not feel line working on it.

 The roadmaster testified that he did not give the claimant permission to use the dump truck for transn_ortation from Somerville to 3illsboro, and the claimant's use of the truck would be against Company policy. He further testified that he had instructed the claimant approximately two weeks prior to February 5, 19232 for hi.:. to leave the truck in Somerville on Company property.

 After reviewing all of the testimony, the Board finds that claimant was responsible for the violations cited. However, the Board finds that the discipline assessed should be reduced to a suspension and that the claimant should be reinstated to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired but without pay for time lost, such reinstatement to be effective July 5, 1932.

 AWARD: Claim sustained as per above.

 ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply with this award within =rty days from the date of this award.

                              Presto m- . V gore, airman "-


                                rganzzat on hemcer


Dated at Chicago, Illinois
 May 28, 1982 Carrler : em er