FFETIES- Brotherhood of (Maintenance of Way Employes -
 f(7 azSFUT,E_: -
 and
 Atchison, Topeka Zc Santa Fe Railway Company

 Sl=F1'1MGNT "1. That the Carrier violated the Agreement
 _O_F CLAIq^ when on August 21, 1985, it dismissed
 Bridge and Building Department Carpenter
 Mr. L. M. Beasley on the basis of unproven
 charges, said action being unduly harsh,
 excessive and in abuse of discretion.
 2. Because of the aforesaid violation, Claimant
 L. M. Beasley shall now be reinstated to his
 former position with seniority and all other
 rights restored, unimpaired, and be compen
 sated for A11 wage loss suffered."
 FINDI NGS:
 Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the
 parties herein area Carrier and Employees within the meaning of
 Lhe Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly
 constituted under- Public Law 89-455 and has .jurisdiction of the
 parties and the subject matter.

The Claimant herein was terminated for appropriating a Company lruc-k: for personal use without prripcr authority on July 22, 1985. He was afforded an in vestiqation and the charges were sustained by Carrier.



The record indicates that on the day in question, Claimant had not been well, having suffered a heat stroke while at work;, Ile returned to his camp car- and at about 7:30 PI1, still not feeling well, he tried to start his private vehicle to go to the store to purchase aspirin as well. as food. His vehicle did not start, according to his testimony, and he borrowed the Carrier's pickup truck to drive to a convenience store for aspirin and for some hamburgers. His total period of time with the Company vehicle was only ten to twenty minutes at most, according to Petitioner.


In support, of its position, Petitioner notes that Carrier on many occasions permitted employees to use its vehicles for purposes of having supE)er or otherwise when they did not. have tran=sportation to get their evening meal. Furthermore, according to Petitioner, even though Claimant did riot have permission, his use of the Carrier vehicle was innocent and caused no inconvenience or difficulty for anyone. In addition to this, according to Petitioner', the measure of discipline imposed in this case was disproportionate to even the alleged violation.


Carrier- notes that in other instances where it may have permitted erriployces to rise its vehicles for purposes of securing food in

L) 77 y -iS3 ~

 those Gasses. permission was secured prior to the use of the
 Carrier vehicle. Carrier also notes that in this omploye's
 thirteen years of tenure, he had ten prior disciplinary
 inrcidents, including dismissals. This dispute, while apparently
 based on a relatively insignificant incident which normally would
 not mandate dismissal involves no quarrel with respect to what
 transpired. The only significant issue is whether the punishment.
 fits the crime. There is no doubt but that Claimant should have
 secured permission prior to using the Company's pickup. Carrier
 on the other hand imposed "capital punishment" for a relatively
 .insignificant violation, basing it in large part on Claimant's
 prior record.

 Thc- Board must observe that the prior record had no relationship
 whatever to the particular infraction involved in this matter.
 Furlhermure, again it must be observed that discipline is not
 primarily punative in nature. As the Board views it, this was no
 neophyte.employee. He should have known better than to have ta4:c=n
 the Carrier vehicle without first securing permission. This i.s
 onlr m.itipated by virtue of the.- testimony, including that of the
 Foreman, that employes frequently did indeed use,, the Carrier pick
 up or other vehicles to go Out to dinner. Under all the
 circumstances, the Board views; the particular discipline imposed
 in this case as being toe, severe. It was not appropriate 7L,r th:-

particular- infraction, raven t.akinc) into consideration Claimant's [·rior' record. Thureforc , Claimant shal l be reinstated to his former posi.'tion, but as a penalty for the infraction .i.n this instance, arid in view of his prior record, the time out of service shall be Considered to have befan a disciplinary layoff.

 f141t~;R11

 Claim Sustained in part: Claimant shall be restored to his 'Former position with all rights Unimpaired but the time out of service shall be considered to have been a disciplinary layoff. ORDER

            Carrier will comply with the Award herein within thir-tv days from the date hereof.


            I.I`i., Lieberman, Neutral Member


C. f-. Foose, tmp-loge Menber- - G .M. GARM~N. Carrier Member
 Chicaqo, llli.nois

 February 11 . 1933