PUT= Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 In to1::>Pt tTL
 and

STATCJ-*~jJT_ "i. That the Carrier's decision of June 13, 1985
 Of GL~dII·I-~, 'to dismiss Trackman B. G. Long was without
 just arid sufficient cause, based on unproven
 charqos and in violation of the current
 agreement, said action being totally unwarranted
 ;and capricious.
 2. Because of the aforesaid violation, the
 Carrier shall now be roqi-aired to return Claimant
 to his former position with the Carrier with
 suniorltv and all other rights restored,
 unimpaired, rind compensate him for all wane

upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the iyart:i:.:_ herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaaninn of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is-. duiv onstituted t-under- Public Law 99-4Sb arid has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 The Claimant. a track laborer. was ehai'-card with m1uappropraatino
 Company vehicle for his own use on April 27, 1985. Follow.inq an rovoatication the Carrier found him ouilty of the charnw> and dismissed hiw from serviLe>.
 a-7 -) se-15-8

f'etiLicaner claims, in addition to rai s.inq a number of procedural quootiun=., that Carrier has not lived up to its burden of proof in this instance and ha^_s noL ostablishcd the facto upon which the discipline was based. Furthermore, aecordinq to the Orqanization, there wits siqnificant conflict in the testimony at: the In·: estiqotion.


Carrier, on the other hand, contends that there was a clear cut identification of the Claimant: by a security officer, that there w-yn no conflicts on any material fact yet the investiqation and the evidence conclusively establishes the Claimant's quilt. Carrier arques that there is no question but that the discipline occorded him was appropriate in view of his infraction.


First., with respect to the procedural questions raised by the Orqaniaation in its submission. the Board nodes that none of iht· -; i·Sues were raised in the course of thaw hearlnq and must therefore be considored to have been waived. With respect to the conflict in testimony alleqod by petitioner, it is apprarMt that this Board in no way can resolve those issues and thaw wu~ e ,n fact reajived try the hearino officer.


7-t-;e testimony adduced aL the hearinq a<> interpreted by the
 no8rina officer clearly establishes::, the fact that. Claimant was
 -'r7 y -/5 -8

 quiUy or the charges. There is ample evidence to support Carrier-S c_cnclunion. The discipline accorded Claimant: in this. insta"ce in view of Lhoo nature of the infraction was appropriate "nd should not. be disturbed.

 ~PIFt~:rn - -



C. F. Fou_ao. Lmploye hlr_m,;cr- G. M. Garmon, ( ~_.rr.i,er- r~`~bor
 Chicago, Illinois
 February 11 - 190£3