PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2206
AWARD N0.
14
CASE NO. 21
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:
rotherhood of Maintenance of Way °hployees
and
Burlington Northern, Inc.
STATF4ENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
11(1)
The dismissal of Section Ibrenan F. 9. Carignan, Cetobor l",
1977 was without Just and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to the alleged offense. (System File T-W-129C)
"(2) Section Foreman E. A. Carignan be reinstated with all seniority
and other rights unimpaired and be oompansated for all time lost."
OPINION OF BOARD:
Claimmant Earl A. Carignan formerly was employed by Carrier as a Section Foreman. Following due notice and investigation he was found guilty of
being absent from duty without authorization and of falsification of his time
record on September 13, 1977. On the basis of those findings and review of his
prior personnel record Claimant was dismissed fromm service effective October 12,
1977.
The record establishes through unrefuted testimony and Claimantta
admissions that he absented himself for four hours without permission on the
afternoon of September 13, 1977, and falsely claimmed those hours on his time
roll as time worked. He was found out only because the Roadmmaster tried to oontact him that day and was unable to find him. Claimants only defense was that
he made a mistake and would not do it again. We cannot find that Carrier erred
0106 - Awe ~(
in rejectirk; that defense and determining that the time was claimed falsely and
improperly. See P. L. Hoard No. 2071, Award No.
5.
The seriousness of Claimants misconduct and his previous work record
were explored fully in conferences on the property. Despite intensive efforts
by the Organisation, the carrier hae refused to reinstate Claimant even on a
leniency basis. We find nothing in this record to cause us to substitute our
judgment for that of Carrier.
ISDINi:S:
Public Law Hoard No. 2206, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, 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
Claim denied.
Dana E. Eischen, airman
t
a. iun ;, Fxiployee Vembar L. K. Gall, Carrier member i
Dates ~~_ i ~9
P y