. Case No. 304
PUBLIC LAW tiU:UW NO. 1562
PARTIES) ATCAISON, TOPEKA &iqij SAINT" F:a i::? lLa.si ~;Urlt· 1itY
'1 'O )
DISPUTE) ssuTUr;"UD OF itAINTENANCz
VF "AY c..11·Lu~'-'_.o
STATEVENT VF CLAIM: That the
Carrier's
dacisiun to s~uasa the.
cZa
'-=t, owe, 30 demurits aftei iuvasti_46tiw&: April 10,
19d4 was unjust. That the Carrier now expui.j;i: 3u ueuurits from
claimant's record, reimbursing him for all wage lust: ,sod expenses
incurred as a result of attending the iuv,:~tigation llril 10, 19,34
because a review of the investiaation tzauscri;.t r«vetils that auu
atautial evidence was not introdlused tiirt ir.4icac" Ql4i111aat is
guilty of violation of rules ha was charLt.1 wits. in rta~' Notice ui
Investigation.
FINDINGS: 'fills Public Law Hoard No. hot fines tli:,t tile parties
larein are Carrier and employee within
the naealiium
J.L
ttae Raslway
Labor Act, as amended, and that this
:Hoaral
has Juris.:i-Ciun.
In this dispute, the claimant was chari;ed
uit11
leavil.w work early
witnout proper authority and claiming tine not sctuai1y worlca
and for falsifying timesheet zed pocRet ti"ehook, while e:uployed
as Group 5 tlachine Operator, near Skull Valley, el~:izla.~. Ail
investigation was held
April 10, 1984,
and pursuant to the
ilivasti
Bation, the claimant was assessed 30 demerits fur his reboons-j.bilit/
in claims:l blue not actually worked and Leino absent wit.out autnority sad fasifyiag timasheat and pocket tilnc,book on Fevruary 23,
1984, in violation of Rule C 752(x), 752(C), a:id 77c of Rules,
Maintenance of
way
and Structures.
The claimant testified that he was employed as Group_~,Jperator,
workin near Qkull Valley, Arizona on February 23,
l.~a,4.
.in rectified tkat his aasiUned hours were 7:00 a.u. to
3:3u
;:.m. , tout
tzdL
ht. loft work at 2:30 p .m. because he had tea
"atu"L:a
flu
tX&J
I
vas L.ld sic::
ale
I couldn't goel that I could wurl: al:.- loner, so
I went huuua and I went to bed."
"lie tiule-keeping documents that
the claialzt curapleLt-.: J:ur t:~..
1::~1
half of February indicated that hr had
ul.xi:ues b lla)lir:;
aid.: . .lvae,:~
nvtrtime on February 23, 1934.
Ttae
cluiMaCa~,~
:.,.a:a.i
l...stiti~: t..st
mludue$;ia~,, ie!:.ruary
21,
he was
Off lit ~:.iaJ
U1~.L.7asu .1C
Wao
11~.
tqr.
r1inQLJ1-t
testified that l.e was a
IJJCk
Lquit':.:cuL~ Adilitainer
an,"' tadL art
l%:uruary 23 he was illstrUCCLU
CO r0
--:) .:6lili Va.L.iC.:J
slid
relsi.r
tlid
clail:lant's scrdl.cr. he
l.a.;i~ltia.a:
Ca:..~
;Le
~:_.., ui.~i.IL
to locate
the
claimant, that lie
U1.
C11,;
that clay and Friday and the following
.:u1_:~;;~·.
ai,s-15x2
/~gy award No. 261
raga 2
Mr. W. N. Smith, Assistant Division Engineer, Albuquuryue
DlvisiOtl,
testified that the claimant admitted to him that lie ail in fact
leave early on February 23. tic testified that that eouversation
took place oil February 29. He further to-sti:ied chue ue checked
the claiuar.t'a timeshe®t coyy, his overtime sheet cu-.y and his pay
record on the time-pay detail siieca, an.! the clui.usrlt
Ilij
in
=pact
charge and was paid for a full day's wabes on
the 2
,,i.i, and three
lours overtime. lle also testified that he exawiuGU
L.:t
claiuaaut's
overtime log and that for February 22 he showed worki4y three hours
overtime and
eight
hours at regular pay.
Roadmastgr D. S. Guillen also testified Ilia attempts to determine
the facts in this dispute. He was allowed to testify to some hearsay testimony, over an objection. The objection should have teen
sustained and the hearsay testimony should have beeu stricken, _
however, the hearsay testimony involved herein was iiralzvant an3'
did not pertain to the claimant': guilt.
The testimony is sufficient for the Carrier
to
fin.l
that
the claimant was guilty as charged. Under the circumst"nces, there is no
justification to overrule the decision of the Carrier.
AWARD:
Claim denied.
Preston "oore, is roan
Union
e
e.i
Lok~
r etu er l