Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Illinois Central Gulf Railroad

 Statement or Claim: Appeal of the decision of Assistant Superintendent, H L. Craddock, on April 14, 1977, dismissing welder Charlie Marlow from service of the Illinois Central Gal.t Railroad for violations of Maintenance of Way - RuLes "R" and "U".

 Findings- The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and evidence,
 tinds that ::.e parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the
 meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly
 constituted by Agreement dated January 23, L978, that it has jurisdiction
 of the parctes and the subject matter, ant= that the parties were given
 due nucice u: the hearing held.
 CLaituau- Welder, Charlie Marlow, was dismissed from service, April 14, ly,--, as the result of an investioaciou held Aprii b, 1977, to determine the facts and o:ace responsibility, if any, in connection with ac cusati:nti of theft and misaporupridtioo of Railroad property, made agdin'it its DiVLSiOn ?nginrer. W. H. Knigbc, io d ietter dated January 1?. ?77, adarasbod to the tier P·es=dent it t,~e Railroad, Alan 3-yd. · drr·. eancLud~r hd- , r c·· ~c_.sat·..rs wlrte V7.CL:us and untrue and that CLai'aanl's do ._.>.1 . _u c· a ·_ ,c !d-.tun ~f rfdintenance of
 r r

                        -2- Public Law Board No. 2142

                        Award No. 1


Way Rules "R" and "U". Said Rules, in pertinent part, provide:

        "&" "Conduct - Courteous deportment is required of all employees in their relation with... and each other... F~nployees must not be... (3) Dishonest


        (5) Quarrelsome or otherwise vicious ....

        rr


        "U" "Dishonesty , making false-or statements "

The function of this Board has been proscribed to be that of an appellate body which reviews the evidence, primarily the transcript of the investigation, to determine whether the Claimant had been accorded the due process assured him by the appropriate provisions of his contract, then whether sufficient evidence was adduced to support the conclusions reached by Carrier and finally whether the discipline assessed was

 unreasonable.
 The Board finds that Claimant Marlow was accorded due process. Carrier was not obligated to cite an alleged rule violation in its notice of investigation. Such notice, however, should be sufficient so as to apprise Claimant as to the purpose for which it is being held. It is held that Claimant was duly and properly notified as to the purpose of the investigation. Claimant was given a fair hearing, and was capably represented. He faced his accusers and Claimant exercised his right of appeal. The delay in furnishing a transcribed copy of the investigation was not, in the circumstances, held to be reversible error.
 There was sufficient competent and probative evidence adduced, including Claimant's admissions, to support the conclusion as to
 . a
                                -3- Public Law Board No. 2142

                                Award No. 1


        Claimant's culpability reached by Carrier. It reflected that the

        President of the Railroad had received an anonymous letter, dated

        January 12, 1974, postmarked Memphis, Tennessee, accusing therein

        Division Engineer Knight of various fraudulent and illegal conduct;.

        such as but not limited to "stealing from the railroad and selling

        material to private contractors", "to use employees on the railroad

        to build a car porch ....and also to build a patio on company time".

        The letter caused, a comprehensive and thorough internal investigation

        resulting in exoneration of Engineer Knight. However, the concern for

        identification of the party who would stoop to such tactics to ruin the

        character and record of a-competent supervisor caused the implementation

        of another comprehensive investigation which resulted in Claimant being

        placed under charges for the accusations made against Division Engineer

        Knight. Claimant as the result of admission made during the course of

        such investisation was offered the opportunity to take a polygraph test

        which he declined. The ev9.denc- included the testimony of security

        .-_°f icers who had investigated the allegations made, that of a competent

        ndwr~,:Lng ana'yst, that of a retired emplovee named =n the letter as

        nyving alleged_y directed. or wecked on buildirg additions :o Division

        =zi4ineer Kn=-.ht's home and that :f Cla?.man c. All of the testimony, when

        w?i;hed, s':'~^irted Carrier's _.. _usion. a.5 was pointed '=:St in Third

        L..1si.j, .,aer. 10791:


                -`'.s raises the ^_ a. -'-n of wei_'zing -,ridence and passing ipon

                ,.:a: enedibility of ' je witnesses. z. function reserved to the

                US, r:._^.Q Off ic~r Wr.: .- rc =~: _ . - %Tvny and ·)oserved the

                ?=·ae:n^r of the s=:::_=:.·.. _,_ :r,6 line D:: ~~ases thie

                _ =has held :hat . .___ ·:,- su:.-5tuce its :ldaepient `or

. 1 .r

        1. .


                                  -4- Public Law Board No. 2142

                                  Award No- 1


                that of the Hearing Officer upon the weight of evidence. This principal was well expressed by Referee Carter is Award 3149 as follows: 'We are committed to the rule that it is not proper function of this Board to weigh the evidence and if the evidence is such, if believed, it supports the findings of the Carrier, it will not be disturbed."'


            This Board so finds in the instant case.

        Dis missal is the utmost penalty which may be- assessed for violation of Company rules. Claimant's reprehensible conduct resulted in a violation of Rule R_ Here there was an unfounded vicious personal attack made on the character of a supervisor who, had achieved 30 years of unblemished Service. Its significance and nature is best expressed in the words cf William Shakespeare who said;


                "He who steals my purse steals trash but he who filches from me my good name steals that which not enriches him but makes me poor indeed."

        The Board therefore finds that the discipline assessed was not, in the circumstances, unreasonable. This claim will be denied.


        Award: Claim denied.


        A. J. nningham, FUployee emb r MTJ Ha , C,rri.er Member


                          Art ur T. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


                          Tssued at Falmvuth, Massachusetts, August 2-. y18.