Partter;: Brotherhood r·_° Railway and Airline Clorka
 and





He.Cktgzaund: The Claimant C!Crk, with a seniority date of Apxl
 197?, was $isirdssed by the Carrter, after a du7~; noticed investigation.,
 after she pleaded guilty in the Federal District Court of falsely
 cladm-4ng and r.aceiving Social Security penefits on behalf of an Jndi-

 vidusl who had died in 1970. The Claimant received the fraudulenu -
 Social Security 'benefits from 1977 thrcugh 1979 in the amount of $11,,500.
 After the M&ir&snt pleaded tntilty in Court, the judge imposed on her a
 three-yeas suspended sentence and three years of felony probation and
 required her to Lender 4010 hours o$ public service work and to make
 full restitution to the Social. Security Administration.
 The Notice for Investigation stated it wan called
··· ::-~velop the facts concerning her indictment for filing and recsi Vi no
                                          Award No. 11 Case No. 1

-zfraudulent claims for Social Security benefits. The Organization
 objected at the Investigation to the fact that the Carrier had uol:
 charged the Claimant with violating any specific Carrier Rules. After the conclusion of the Investigation* the Carrier sent the Claimant a letter of dismissal, dated December 14, 1981, wherein it stated the.t she had been found guilty of filing and receiving false 8oc1a,I Eccurity claims payments, and it had been determined that she had violated General Rules 2 and 3 for the Non-operating Emrlcyess. Rule 2 requires employees to ue civil and polite in their dealing with the public and with each other. Rule 3 states, inter alia,that employees who era dishonest will not be retalned in service.

                      Carrier's kositicn

The Carrier states that its handling of this caec did not violate any procedural rights of the Claimant, and on its merits. it had just sad sufficient cause to dismiss the Claimant.
                  Concerning the procedural objections of ;.he organi-

zation, the Carrier states that the Notice of L^.vestigation was clear and specific and telly enabled the Claimant to prepare hor defense. The omission of any rules allegedly violated did not prejudice the Claimant in defending herself at the Tnvsstigation. At the conclusion of tP.c hearing, the Carrier stated it determined, upon all the evider,ce that ` the Claimant's conduct constituted a violation of $ulas 2 and 5. The Claimant knew about the charges being preferred against her, and she was able to defend herself against these charges. The failure to oito specific rules was in no any prejudicial to her right to a fair and impartial hearing.
                                          /3 3d 9 4,


                                          Award No. 11. Case No. '


                The Carxl e:r further states tt"t intz:duei rg the

Clwlvan ,'s prior per:-onnrl xeccrd in -!-.e ?.nvesLigation was not. viols ti ve
 of tier r2_5,ht.c cc a fair _~uld impartit~l hearing, Lecauze this ._-,-cord qaz
 not introduce: Per the pti:rpose of plevit:g g'lilt Put k)nly lSeCL in
 deterring the appropriate di:.cigline to be a,sae:aed, if any.
 0n they merits, th,3 Car_:iar stated there it no doubt, rna the :laisont conceded it :n open volxrt, thaw -he defrauded the Federal uc-:ernmer,+. by filing false ,Social Security :`:<<ims for two years. This is cinhanezt conduct. The Claimant ~a^.~'a+.ed a felony, and decide:l_ awnn.rds have nadd it clear :hat the Carrd.er is r,ct required to retvin in Its smploy dishonest employs:;. The Carrier adds that It does not matte% whetaer the dis~%one·~ty directly or not involved the Carrier. l t has the rlg~h: tr_ insist that its employees be honest. The Claimant ciseerly was dishtnest by her acte of swindL1ng the Social security Ad:nini=tzation.
 The Czrier stated that termination io an apgrcp=_a!e diociplinary sanction L, view of the Clainant'3 less than exemplary =ecozd. She was ireviouoly suspe:dsd for j0 days fcr mis`.andling :ompa4ly r"lads; suspended for 15 days for sleeping an the job; suspended 10 days for failing to :all s trainman and received numerous wa-gyring 1o>tters. In lV.gh~ of this record, dUm~ssal la not a harsh ar arbitrary sanction, and ':hr. Hoard should sot dist:irb it.

                  UrganizG,tion °s Position

The Organization states that the avidenrn of recorr does not show aa_y breach of Rules 2 and 3. Thorn xs no evidence
                                          ~G f3 30 ~ ~


                                          Award ho. ll Case No. 1

                        _t4..


that the claimant acted in an unladylike meumer in dea.tinL, vith the :.atside putlia or her fellow employees. $egardinp&ule 3, the Orral11 ration states the Carrler has not pcOvcd ttt2.t the Claimant's pleading guilty to submitting a fraudulent statemeA to the Social Secttrity Administration has bxotrght any disrepute to, .vr caused any ill W111 t3, the Carrier. There was no statemont in the newspaper articlss about the Claimant's ofUnse that described her as being ati entployeo of the Carrier or linked her in any way to the Cs.rrier.
 The organization states that there has to be a reasonx:nle relationship between an employee's off duty misconduct and his conduct as an employee, or a showing that her misconduct had an actual or foreseeable adverse effect on the Carrier's business. The alleged misconduct must have a reasonable and discernible affect or. the Carrier's business before it can assess discipline.
 The: Organization states the Claimant's personnel record was not se bad as to warrant she be discharged for an offense that did not a:fact or impact adversely on the Carrier. Under theca circumstances the Carrier's discipline can only be described as harsh and excessive.
 The Organization further notes that the Claimant did nuL rroceive a fair and impartial hearing in that the Noticefor investigation was not precise and did not cite any Company rules which were alleged violated.
 The Organization a ssertx that the facts of record do not war ,sat the Carrler'm arbitrary actions in denying the
                                                309


Award Nu. 11 Case No. 1 -5~ Claimant the opportunity to earn. her livelihood.

 Findings: The Board, upon the whole record and all the
 evidence, finds that the employee 2nd fwrrier are Employee and Carrier
 within the Railway Tabor Act; that the board has jurisdiction over the
 dispute and that the parties to the dispute were given da4 notice of
 the hearing thereon.
 The $oaxdfinds no valid basis to the Organization's procedural objections. The Notice of lnvestit~ution was explicit and clear and made the Claimant and Organization fully aware of the charges being preferred against her, namely, an investiGation into whether the Claimant had been indicted and subsequently pleaded guilty to filing and receiving false Social Security claim' payments. It is difficult to envision a clearer statement of a charge being investigated.
 The Board finds that it is a troublesome question as to where there is a dichotomy between an employee':; on-duty conduct as being in contradistinction to conduct unrelated to Company t:trployment.
 The Board finds that the answer t)as to be based on the offense itself. While an employee is entitled to a personal life, aside and away from her life as an employee, it is also true that no employee has an absolute vested right to E. job. An employ=_e has to earn the right to remain an employee, especially if the employer is a public .·orporation, prominent in the community. The employee earns this right to remain an employee, not only by rendering good and faithful service, but also by their conduct and deportment, showing that they are responsible
                                          Award No. 11 -

Case 13o. 7
 -6
 :.-ployees of a rasponeible Coffipany. The Board finds that an employee':;
 private and personal non-company ccnduct, important as it be4 does not
 Smmunize her from V:e consequences cf her conduct.
 When the Board examines the offenno to xhich the Claimant pleaded guilty in open court, it notes that for an extended period, i.e. , for two years, the Claimant filed. for ;uid collected Social Security payments for her mother who had died :even years before the Claimant commenced filing and collecting her fraudulent claims.
 The Board finds that this ores a deliberate, concerted and protracted effort to defraud and cheat t:.e Federal Government. The Carrier could properly determine that an employee who is guilty of such flagrant dishonesty is not entitled. to be one of Us employees. The offense is sufficiently reprehensible for the Carrier to determine that an employee who is so dishonest, is an employee not to be trssted or worthy of being retained in its employment.
 The Board finds that, under the facts of this case, the Carrier could properly determine that the Claimant's offduty conduct we so dolictual as to °&X=t her termination. t An" it noteworthy that Third Divlricse Asrrd <'M4, cited at lengtF_ by tlteVaUPLni". !~Iaa states:
                "3n applying the forego#ag pAnctple

                to the instant case we must conclude

                that under different circumstances

Claimant's off-duty conduct, might
 have presL--rtett g: :nods for cist~tnlf7e."
 `Cta Board finds t.22 this r=acord ; W acnta grounds
 for the discip:.ine assessed :against the Claimant. The Hoard also finds

 that there is nothina in the r_,Leimart's px-lc;r rc:card '.:rxtl: warrants
mi.tiE!Ating the assessed diacxpline.

 3og (0

 Award'ISo, is Case No, 1

 Maim denied.

 Jacoeidottber~irman and k:euMemw-r'

 =.`~T. Lye. ; p s~yee Member
 t

"A!; IN3

- ~ - -6 ., - -


?R. Power, Carl'.c:r Member