Carrier File MW-DEC-86-43


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company

 Statement
 of Claim: Terry Brown-30 days suspension for violation of Safety
 and General Conduct Rule GR-12 firearms.

        Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of the parties Agreement establishing this Board therefor.


        Claimant, Machine Operator, failed to arrive at 7:00 AM to operate the Koehring crane. He did not arrive for work until approximately 1:00 PM, which was 6 hours after the scheduled starting time.


        The Roadmaster learned that the reason for Claimant being late was because he spent the previous night in the local jail in Lafayette, Indiana. In the conversation with the local police, the Roadmaster was advised that Clalmant.was arrested at 1:00 AM and charged with Driving Under"-the Influence (DUI). The police also found firearms in Claimant's vehicle which vehicle Claimant used daily for transportation to the job site for company provided lodging at Days Inn, Lafayette.


        The Roadmaster cited Claimant to attend a formal investigation to determine his violation of Rule GR-12 in having possession of firearms on company property and with failure to protect his assignment on June 12. As a result of the investigation Carrier concluded that Claimant was guilty and assessed the discipline here appealed.


        Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under his discipline rule. His removal from service was not in violation thereof. Possession of guns either on the job site or in the Company leased hotel room would be construed to be in violation thereof. That is not a minor offense. The GR-12 rule is intended to discourage and deter employees from bringing guns to work in order to protect the safety of all other employees. Our Award No. 107 justifies the reasoning behind GR-12.


        There was sufficient evidence to support and permit Carrier to make a conclusion that Claimant was culpable of the charges placed against him. DUI is not an unavoidable

·· P~ W6o
 -2- Award No. 114

              cause for detention from work. Nor, is having a fellow employee advise that another employee is going to be late concomitant with permission.


              While the Board may not have reached the same conclusion, the fact remains that there was general knowledge on the employee grapevine that the Claimant was carrying weapons, or that he possessed weapons. Testimony showed that he was transporting himself to the job site in the same vehicle in which firearms were later found. Claimant's testimony reflected that he was being evasive in the necessary answers for reaching a direct conclusion. The evidence must be construed as being inferential or circumstantial. However, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as the direct evidence of a witness. Hence, Carrier as trier of the facts concludes from the evidence adduced that if there were firearms in the glove compartment of his car and also in his room, that he is guilty of possessing guns on Company property. The evidence supported that conclusion. This claim will be denied.


      Award: Claim denied.


      S. A. I mm on s, VF.-, Empio a Member . F. Miller, Car em er


                      A`rthur T. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


                      Issued September 27, 1990.