PARTIES) ATC$ISON, TOPEIVA LND .SANTA. Fr. RAIMAY COiPMY TO ) DISPUTE) BROUMMOOD OF MAf^IT M'VMCE OF WAY MPLOYMES
STAMMXT OF CLAM: .
1 That the Carrier's decision to assess claimant thirty (30)
 demerits after investigation July 15, 1983 was injust.

 2. That the Carrier now expunge thirty (30) demerits from the claimant's record, reimbursing him for all wage loss and expenses incurred as a result of attfding the investigation July 13, i~wL because a review of the investigation transcript reveals that substantial, creditable evidence was not introduced that indicates claimant is guilty of violation of rules he was charged witz in the Notice at Investigation.

 FIMINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1532 finds that the parties
 aarezn are Carrier and Employee within tae meaning of the Rail:ray
 Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute the claimant, E.-J'. McDade, was notified to attend an investigation concerning his alle edly appropriating Compan._r pakset radio ID-5511 and keeping it in his possession without authority since September of 1982. The investigation was he13 in the Division Engineer's office in Temple, Texas an July 15, i:33.

 The investigation also included a charge that the claimant withheld and falsified information concerning how tae pakset was acquired. Pursuant to the investigation the claimant was assesses 30 demerits for violation of Rules 14, 19 and 31-B, General Rules for the Guidance of Employees, Form 2026 Standard.

 Rule 14 reads in part: "Employees must not withhold information, or- fail to give all tae, facts; regarding . . ."

 Rule 19 reads in part: "The Company's communication system --.:sz not be used unnecessarily."

 Rule 31-B reads in part: " . making false reports or statzmIts . . . will subject the offender to immediate dismissal."

 The clai.mant.admitted at the investigation that he had had tae radio in his possession since the latter part of September or ear l October of 1982. The claimant further testified that he was not authorized to have the Company pakset in his possession Lut red


found it laying out in the weeds. He also testified that- he figured it was not important or it would not be laying out in the Johnson grass.

 The cluimant further testified that he made no attempt to find out where the radio belonged, and further made no attempt to report it. He also testified that he had checked the pakset out previously and had returned :Lt. The radio could only be used for personal business since it could not receive or send on any frequency other than the frequencies assigned to the Santa Fe.

 The claimant testified that when he was questioned by Roadmaster 3eard, he was 'not asked how he found the radio, but when he has questioned by a Special Agent and Assistant Division Engineer Beattie, he told them the same story that he testified to during the investigation.

 Roadmaster Beard testified that in the early part of vay of 1983 he had an occasion to be aware of where the claimant`s gang was working and observed a pakset radio in the claimant's right hip pocket, and when.he asked the claimant where he. got the pakset, the claimant stated that he had checked it out at Somerville.

 3Cadma&ter Beard also testified that-he later checked the missing
 aakset list and discovered that this pa-kset was on the missing
 list and had been missing since September of 1982. He then testi
 fied that on June 6, 1983 he and Special Agent Sommerfeld and
 Assistant Division Engineer Beattie went to the claimant, picked
 up the pakset, and at that time the claimant told hlr. Sommerfeld
 that he had found the pakset at the east end of Somerville Yard.
 3e also testified that the claimant did not have authority to have
 the aakset. -

 Assistant Division Engineer Beattie testified that. the claimant was not authorized to have a nakset. He also testified that aaca Roadmaster is assigned one pakset radio, and if a foreman needs the use of one, he borrows it from the Roadmaster. he further testified that the pakset which the claimant was using was assigned to train, engine. and yard service at Somerville.

 Special. Agent Sommerfeld.testified that the pakset in question was assigned to the switching crew at Somerville and was issued for their specific use in the S omerville vicinity, which is appro::imately 100 miles from the location where the claimant was assigned.

 Roadmaster Beard also testified that the switch engines at Somerville had to work short because the pakset was missing.

 The claimant herein is a long term employee of the Carrier and had'a great deal of experience and knew, or certainly should
                        ' ~~g~- Award 21o. 241

                                          Page 3


have known, that he was not authorized the use of a radio which was Company property. Re further should have known that Company property should have been turned in to a supervisor at the first opportunity. Under the circumstances there is no justification to set: the discipline aside.

 AWARD: Claim denied.

                            Preston. J. vloore, Chairman


                            Z'rganlzatlou Member


                            a er er


Dated at Chicago. Illinois September.13, 1983