Pi[;PIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee
 T_O and
 LTSPU'TF: Southern Pacific-Transoorc.ation Company
 ITATEMENT "i. That the Carrer violated the cur- -
 QF CLAIM: rent Agreement when it dismissed from
 its service Track Laborer S. L.
 Sennett. Said action being excess - -
 sive. unduly harsh and in abuse of
 discretion .

FINDIPiGS

Upon the whole record. after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the hailwav Labor Act. as amended, and that this board is duly constituted under Public Law $9-456 and has iur.isdiction of the parties and the subject matter.


Claimant had been employed as a Laborer on April L'?, 1981. Ev _. letter dated September- 25, 1.9x6, Claimant was charged wa.th violation of Rule G, failure to protect his job, destroyinu

.~2 u3G-13,1

personal property belonging to a Company employee and for alleged theft of a radar- detector from a vehicle belonging to a fellow employee on September- 21. 1986. Claimant was notified of the hearing scheduled for October 16, 1986, but did not attend the hearing. Following the hearing, Claimant was found guilty of tire charges and by letter dated November 11, 1986, was dismissed from Carrier's service.


The evidence at the hearing indicates that Claimant did not report for work. on the morning of September 23, 1986, nor did anyone call to indicate that he would be off that day. Following the roll call, Carrier officers found Ben nett asleep inside a camper on Carrier property. The Assistant Roadmaster's testimony was that by appearance and odor he believed that Mr. Bennett was under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, when he woke Mr. Bennett that morning and asked why he was not at work, Bennett s


reply was, "I nee Assistant Roadmast _

 with respect to th detector that he

 restitution for th evidence at the

 Claimant.

stealing vehicle.


tacitly

 the radar

 d

 n

 e

 e

 five more days to sob

 r, furthermore, Rennet break-in to a vehicle

 would pay
 stolen rada hearing, by

 admitted to the

 r

 for the detector letter

 t

 er up". According to the

 responded to questions

                and stealing the radar


make

tine i988,


respect- to

 detector and breaking into another employee

 damages

 In dated

 infractions with

 done and

 addition to
 January li,
                                                ~43~-13~


The Petitioner- insists that Carrier failed to conduct a fairhearano in that Claimant was not present. Furthermore, the individual who allegedly saw Claimant steal the radar detector was also not present at the hearing. In addition, the Petitioner argues that-there was no direct evidence of Claimant usina alcohol or drugs on the morning in question. There was no urine test which would have removed any vestige of doubt with respect to this aspect of the charge, according to Petitioner.


The Claimant received a proper notification by certified mail of
 the investigation. The fact that the letter was not delivered
 does not in any sense require or obligate Carrier to make any
 oLher atLemot to contact Claimant. There was no allegation that
 the letter was not sent to his address which was recorded in his
 personnel file by Carrier. The evidence of this hearing is clear
 and unequivocal that Claimant was under the influence of alcohol
 and absent from his job on the morning in question. Furthermore,
 there is an admission in fact with respect to the stealing of the
 radar detector by Claimant, as well as evidence from the
 individual from whose car the equipment was taken. There is -no
 doubt but that Carrier had a right to conclude from the evidence
 adduced at the hearing that Claimant was guilty of the charges.
 Thus., the decision to dismiss him was appropriate.
                                                ~~t3q-X39


AWARD
              Claim denied.


              I. M. Lieberman. Neutral-Chairman


C. F. Fooso, Emplovoe Member R./. Stuart, Carrier Member

 San Fransico. California
 0 . 19eq