PUBLIC LAW HOARD N0. 1532


PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPE:Q_ AND SARTA FE RAIL'dAY COMPANY TO ) DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

    STATEMENT OF CLAIM: That the Carrier's decision to assess C1ai:nant demerits £tre investigation October 29, '_934 waa unjust; That the Carrier now expunge 20 demerits from Claimant's record, reimbursing him for all wage loss and expenses incurred as a -result of attending the investigation October 29, 1984 because a review of the investigation transcript reveals that substantial evidence was not introduced that indicates Claimant is guilty of violation o" rules he was charged with in the Notice of Investigation.


FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1532 finds that the parties herein Carrier and employee within the :meaning of the Railwu; Labor Act, as amended, an-d that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute, the claimant was notified to attend an inveti:itor. October 29, 1984 at tile office o-° the Division Engineer in ',linslow, Arizona. The claimant was charSed ·,7ith violation of Rule C, 752 ;A; and (C), and 705, Rules, liaintenance of Uay and Structures, affective January 5, 1975, when the claimant allegedly appropriated railroad company bunk car chairs for his personal use and for ueinS absent without proper authority on October 5, 1984. Pursuant to the investi.ation, the claimant was asses-se;l 20 demerits and notified that this assessment brings his ?ersonal record to .55 de:aerits. He was cautioned that any further demerits could result in dis:.iissal. A special agent testified that he was called to the claimant's house by the Police Department and that he observed several wooden chairs that had "AT&SF RV stenciled under the seat t)ortion.

 The claimant admitted that he took the chairs, but alleged that he was going to return them, and was only concerned that if he left them in the Carrier's truck outside overnight that someone would appropriate them for their own use. He further testified that he placed them under his house and then had simply forgotten them.

 This is a very serious matter, and the discipline assessed shoul~ cause the employee's memory to better recall in the future. Under the circumstances, there is no justification for setting the discipline aside.

 AWARD: Claim denied.

                          re~ oore,~ n_ ,_ ^ : ; ;-,


                          -~ DEC ;L41984

                          Union Member


Dated at Chicago, I11. C J r