A~
i
PUBLIC LAW BOARD 1837
Case #12
(MW-CGO-75-8)
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
VS.
Norfolk and Western Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement dated
February 1, 1951, on October 10, 1975, by unjustly and arbitrarily dismissing from service, Claimant Lyntee Curley account
alleged falsification of payroll farm AD-452.
2. Claimant Lyntee Curley shall be reinstated to Carrier
service, shall be compensated for all lost wages, and shall have
all seniority and other rights returned unimpaired.
FINDINGS: This Board upon the whole record and all the
evidence finds that: '
The carrier and employee involved in this dispute are respectively
carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as amended.
This Board had jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
OPINION:
Claimant was classified as a heavy equipment operator
with about.two years service at the time of the events germane
to this case. He is charged with falsifying his time.slips for
six days during the pay periods' involving the last half of July
and first half of August, 1975: (1)
on
July 29. 1975, he was absent
in the morning and
Vs
said~to have claimed h0ad to be in
court; nonetheless, he claimed pay for the entire day; (2)
on July 31, 1975, he left his assigned work area at noon,
purportedly to work on the piece of heavy equipment assigned
to him, such equipment having been disabled a week or so prior;
the e.:uipment repairman testified, on the .record, that he neither
worked on this piece of equipment on that date nor was he scheduled
to do so; (3) the Claimant turned in eight hours on his time slip
for August 1, 1975, but performed no work nor was on duty; (4) on
August 11, 1975, the Claimant purportedly left work for a dental
appointment, was not seen thereafter, but still claimed eight hours
pay for the day; (5) on August 12, 1975, a call was received at
the Carrier's office from a woman indicating that the Claimant
would not be in due to a "sick child;" he turned in eight hours
time as worked; (6) on August 14, 1975, the Claimant was assigned
to chop and clear brush along a specific part of the.right-of-way,
according to the Carrier, but efforts by his supervisor and another
Carrier official was unsuccessful in finding him at any spot along
the Section. The Claimant disputes some, but not all, of the
Carrier's assertions of being absent from work. He contends that
his absences for full and partial days were taken intentionally
with a special "understanding" between he and his supervisor where
such time off would be taken in lieu of pay at the overtime rate
for travel to and from his duty station. The Carrier categorically
- 2-
/4-
w 0 _--
t~
f i
denies any such "u*rstanding" and refutes tjb various other
bases raised by the Claimant to explain his absences. The Organization asserts on the record that "understandings" for days off in lieu
of pay such as claimed herein exists elsewhere and with other employees;
however, we find no showing of proof to affirm such a contention.
In reviewing the record, it would appear that the Claimant was,
as a minimum, cavalier in his approach to give service for pay received.
While the Claimant may have been unaware that he was doing anything
wrong, we cannot overlook the seriousness of the offense. We are not
unaware that the Claimant was made an offer by the Carrier that would
have resulted in his remaining in an employment status; he chose to
refuse.
G. C. Edwards Fred Wurpel, Jr.
Carrier Member Organization Mem r
Dated this day of-l,.·5~i'd! ~`7.~-C' ate---%~i~.``iir.
r