PUBLIC. !,Aid ~OJAH) f0. 184?x



Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

        Chicago and North Western Transportation Company


S TA'I FXE ffi 0 F CLAIM

        Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


          1. The thirty (30) day suspension of Section Foreman P. Folsom and permanent disqualification as a foreman and assistant foreman was improper, without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of unproven charges (System File D-11-1-318) .


          2. Claimant Folsom be paid for all time lost and that his seniority as foreman and assistant foreman be restored.


OPINION OF HOARD:

        At the time this incident arose Claimant was a regularly assigned Section


Foreman at Peoria, Illinois, with seniority dating from July lb, 1972. In the per-

 formanre of his duties Claimant often operated a high rail vehicle owned by the

 Company. The record shows Claimant pic !-s up the high rail truck in the morning

 whey. :· t. reports to work and turns it in when he leaves Carrier'- property ::: t::,:,

 evening. He is not authorized to take the vehicle home or to use it for per soe:~:A

 re~cn.^ .

        Fly letter dated September 22, 1975, Claimant received notice to atteu~:


a formuI _ivestigation,, which read in pertinent part as follows:

        ".CHARGE: Misuse of company vehicle and under the iaflu--rcP. of alcohol while driving company vehicle on Thursday., September 18, 1975 in the vicinity of South Pekin at approximately 7:30 p.m.

S

            "You may be accompanied by one or more persons rind/or repre sentative of your own choosing subject to the provisions of applicable scheduled rules rind agreements and you may, if you so desire, produce witnesses in your own behalf without expense to the Transportation Company.

      sf D. L. Boger Asst. Div. Mgr. - Engineering" Subsequent to this hearing Claimant was found culpable as charged and assessed disciplines of thirty dayst actual suspension together with permanent disqualifica tion as foreman and assistant foreman. Thereafter the instant claim was filed protesting the assessment of discipline, and failing resolution on the property the matter comes to this Hoard for final disposition. The record establishes that on September 18, 1975, at 6:30 p.m., some three hours after Claimant completed his assignment for the day, his high rail truck was observed parked off company property in South Pekin, Illinois, by his supervisor, Roadmaster G. d. Kelly. Upon sighting the vehicle Kelly telephoned Claimant's home and was advised by the latter's wife that Claimant was out fixing a broken rail near Peoria. The Ro admaster left a message with Claimant's wife to have Hr. Fblsom call him when he returned. Kelly thereupon contacted the dispatcher and determined that there was no broken rail near Peoria, nor were there any problenv requiring Claimant's services at South Pekin. I'Finally, at about 7:30 p.m. Kelly telephoned the tavern outside of which the high rail was parked and asked for Mr. rblsom. He was advised that Claimant was not there, but almost immediately after this telephone call the high rail vehicle departed that location. Kelly received no return call from Claimant and at approximately 9 p.m. he went, together with another employee, to Claimant's home. Tire high rail vehicle was parked at Claimant's residence and Kelly instructed the other employee to drive the vehicle back to company property. Kelly thereupon discussed the incident wigs

s

 r r
 i l
 f Claimant, who told him that he was using the company vehicle between 6:30 and
 7:30 p.m. to change out a rail near South Pekin. Kelly rejected thi: story and
 told (aairnant he had seen the vehicle parked outside a tavern during the time period
 in question. Thereupon Claimant told the Roadmaster that he had stopped ir, the
 tavern but only consumed a beer or two. He stated further that he too;( the company
 vehicle `tome because his own personal car had been broken down. Final-.y he con
 ceded that he did not have permission or authorization to use the company vehicle
 for 'personal business.
 At the formal investigation on the property, Claimant did n-t deny telling
 the Roadmaster he had used the vehicle for personal. business And that he had con
 sumed a beer or two in the process. But he testified during tae investigation that
 he was only joking and did not in fact go into the tavern at all on September 18,
 2975. In this connection the transcript of investigation contains Claimant's ex
 planation of his conversation with Kelly in the following words:
 "Then I was going to call the office and his truck was out in
 front. So, I went out there and he started jumping me about
 being in the tavern. And drinking with the company vehicle.
 So, I just throwed that in that I just had one beer, I was just
 going to joke along with him. But, I seen then that he was
 meaning business but I couldn't change it then so I just let it
 go at that. Hut, I don't drink no liquor at all and the only
 time that I drink is when we went to the union meeting down at
 Beold." .
 At the investigation Claimant further explained his presence near the tavern by
 stating he stopped ti) gas up the company vehicle at a filling station next door to
 the t-ivern. He further testified that the reason he took the company vehicle h:>:~c
 was to do repair work on it since he had discovered a loose part while fillirir, the
 gas tan: and decided to take the vehicle home where he had access to tools belonging
 to his son.
 _3_
 Review of the foregoing record indicates that some fundnmeritnl credibility

 resolutions lie at the heart of thin claim for removal of the discipline. It is apparent that the hearing officer and Carrier did not find Claimantl.s di-,-.vowal of his earlier admissions or his belated explanations persuasive. Upon careful. consideration of the entire record, axe can find no basis for substituting our _jud

 ,gaent .for that of the Carrier on these factual determinations. Nor can we find that the quantum of discipline imposed is arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious in all the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we shall not disturb the discipline imposed by Carrier on this Claimant. The claim must be and is denied.

 Public Lax Hoard No. 1844, upon the whole record and all of the evidences

 finds and holds as follows:

 1. That the Carrier and Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively,

 Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act;

 2. that the Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

                    3. that the Agreement was not violated.


. AWARD
The claim is denied.

 Dana E.-$achen,Chbi'

 il
 0. M. ferge, EmployeeJMember
 Dated t c- :~- I h '7 J
          1- .4


R. W. Schuiege, Carrier Memb~