NICKEL PLATE,.LAKE ERIE AND WESTERN,
AID tLIt -LEAF DISTRICTS
PUB= T1X BOARD 1837
(*P^<~77·9)
PTO DISC
Brotherhood of MSiaEenavlce- of Way Employees
Norfolk
sad
Western Railway Company
S~= OF CL~f:.
1. The Carrier violated the effective Agreement dated
February 2,.1951, on December 28, 1977, whey it dismissed
claimant Jlr. Covington tram service.
2. The dismissal of the claimant was excessive, unwarranted sad =justified. The claimant now be
restored
to service with seniority and benefits
unimpaired and payment allowed for the assigned
. hours actually Iost,. less nay earnings is the
service of the
corm.
FT~INGS,:
This Board upon the whole record and all the evidence
finds that:
The carrier sad the employee involved is this dispute
am respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended.
herein.
OPINION:
This Board has jrsiadiction over the dispute involved
Claimant submitted an application for employment dated
March 25, 1977. As part of such submission, the Claimant was
required to disclose nay arrests; be listed "reckless driving
and disorderly conduct" in 1971. At the signature line on his
- - Awd. #42.- 1837
application is a statement of certification as to the accuracy
and honesty of such statements. The Claimant was employed
thereafter as a,trackmaa. Commencing November 8, 1977 and
continuing thereafter the Claimant was absent from duty. The
Carrier was-to eventually learn that the Claimant bad: been
arrested. in Pennsylvania in~September of. 1976 ~.or conspiracy to
commit forgery -.a fact:. be failed- to, divulge when he. completed'
the~application: By letter
dated
November~2Z, 1977, the Carrier
was advised than the Clatmsat had returned to Pennsylvania to
answer such charges and to stand trial. By certified letter
dated November 30; 1977, the Claimant was advised of a bearing
concerning his.absenc: from duty and for his fa2.lure to disclose
the aforementioned arrest for forgery; service of such letter
was taken. The, Cliimsat failed to. appear and the Carrier proceded with the benring.over objection of the Organization.
. We need look no furtber than the Claimant's failure to
disclose the arrest to dispose of-this case. He signed his
application withbolding'sucb a serious factor in full vision
of a "warning- atatement"-which is clear-and unambiguous both as.
to its intent and the-results that could issue if information
was falsely, furnished or withheld. The Claimant was in "error
ab initio" -- from the very, beginning, and' neither- favorable
performance on his part nor any procedural flaws by the Carrier -if any had occurred -- would offset the original mistake by the
-2-
· Awd. 142 - 1837
s
Claimant. .
By his own actions, the Claimant has denied himself the
right to employment if the Carrier wishes that to be the case.
By the outcome of its deliberation, the Carrier has chosen that
course of action.
c~AWARD:
Claim is dismissed.
'James F. Scearce
Neutral Member
CQ
G. C. Edwards W. E. LaRue
Carrier Member Organization Member.
Dated at . .fA~
-AA A~ A
this day
of-- L~1 ~1