f1 !IA<L. I C LAW BOARD I·dU
. Z4
:_
5
Award No. 110
Case No. 116
I'-'ART'tF;a Brotherhood o'f_ Ma.Lntenance
ref
Wav Emoloves
_ __.T~_
_. and _
i~l'_-:F·l!fE Southern Fac.r.fic Transportation
Comoanv
_.
- ____ .....
, v
rostern Lines)
-
TraTF:19EN'I- "1. That the Carrier violatI
CAP--
of the
QE--CL_AII·I: current Agreement when in letter dated November 1 5.
1_505 it dismissed Welder D. W. Rosendahl from its
service on the basis- of unoroven charges. said
action heina in abuse of discretion.
_. Carrier -.-hall now exonerate Mr. RRosendahl of all.
charows and
reinstate him
to his former position
with the Carrier with sen.ioritv and all other
rights restored unimpaired and compensation for all
wone loss suffered.
FINDINGS
Upon the whole record
parties herein are
after hear.inrw, the Board finds that the
Carrier and Grt!t=loveFas within the rnearmna of
the Railway Labor Ac.:. as amended. and that this Board is dul';
constituted under Public Law 8?-456 and has iurisdictLon
of
the
parties and t!-re subject matter-.
Claimant. n Welder Helper. vas char-oed with resnonsibilitv for
usinu Southern
gasoline fo
of 1a85.
1-!.is own
of
Pacific Transportation Company's credit to obtain
!rscanal vehicle during August and September
Followincl an investigation of these charges, Glaamarri.
w..,·:. fur.mr: w.!.r 11:v of i:.hN charcms and dismissed from Carrier's
Pet.it.ioner indicates that on September
1;3.
19(75 Claimant. while
Qt
v duty in trig, private vehicle. filled the vehicle with oasuline
1.11
~Cheevron .service station which he freguentlv used for" co,mpanv
h
trsiness. He realized he had foraottren his wallet and checkbook:
and was allowed to leave his name and driver's license number
with the oromisv that, he would return at a later date, to oav for
the purchase. On the fnllow.ino day when a signal supervi=sor
-<npeored at. Lhre station the clerk: asked him if he would include
the previous day's charce by Claimant alone with his purchase for
.- company vehicle. This trianered the investioation of the entire
matter. Accord.ino to Petitioner. the clerk made a mistake in
including Claimant's transaction with that of the supervisor
wlthoLtt C'laimant's knvwledoe or intention for it to take place.
--'"r-thermore. accordzno to Petitioner. there was sionif_icant
i_,w,t..imonv that it was a normal and freauent occurrence for
amnlovee<-; Lo leave a gas ticket to be picked up by another..
employee for- comoahv vehicles, Thus. according to tin.,
r'lroani:ation. Claimant w<as not only a victim of a
,nt5understandino by the clerk at. the station but also was a o·art4
no the Carrier's rather loose system for the purchase of nasoline
for official use.
Cartier aroues Chat. it. had uncovered a deliberate attempt to
fraodulentlv use company credit for personal oasoline Purchases
by Claimant. Carrier- .indicates that on Wo separate occasions ire
both Aruou=,t and Sept,omber of 1.985, Claimant filled his oer·-onal
,·rahicle with aasol.Lne with the allcaed intent: of oavina back the
o,solltne purchase by cash which he failed to do. In both
instances, the purchosses were charged to the commanv.
H careful evaluation of the transcript, of the investigation
r-evo,_:ls significant evidence in suoraortcf Carrier's- conclusion.
1n AddiLtion. Claimant was tried in the state of flew Mexico as a
r-psuit of his two attempts to apnarentlv defraud Carrier anti in
both instances tee Pled auiltv to the charges. Fir: was oiven a
=usoended sentence. acrd out on Probation for six months and
nr uered to male ro-_mt.ituLion as well.. by the court, f-rpm the
Hoard'=s tandooint. in view of both the court- action as well as
+hR
tra.timonv at this investioation. it is apparent that the
Claimant eras =.1 l l.v of the charou s anti Carrier was iust.ified in
As conclusions. The decision to dismiss Claimant was appropriate
and cannot be considered to have been discriminatory or
ar
bite arv. The claim must be derliode
1 _ L1e Lieberman. Neutral-Chairman -
Carrier Member Emolovee Member
San Francisco. California
~,~J3