This Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended; that this Board has jurisdiction over the parties and-the subject matter of the dispute herein; that this Board is duly constituted by an Agreement dated July 23, 1982; and that all parties were given due notice of the hearing held on this matter.

By written notice dated July 6, 1984, the Carrier leveled three charges against Claimant, the Foreman of Extra Surfacing Gang No. 9822. Specifically, the Carrier alleged that Claimant: 1.) was absent without authority on July 3, 1984,· 2.) improperly sought a full day's pay for June 29, 1984 when Claimant actually reported to work one hour late; and 3.) submitted false daily gang production reports for June 28 and 29, 1984. Claimant was withheld from service pending an investigation.

At a July 13, 1984 investigation, the pertinent facts were undisputed. In summary, Claimant candidly conceded that he committed each of the charged offenses.

First, on July 3, 1984, Claimant left his home in Elko, Nevada to commute to Wells, Nevada (the location of the gang). Claimant's designated starting time was 6:30 a.m. On his way to Wells, Claimant became tired. He pulled his vehicle over to the side of the road and fell asleep. Claimant awoke at 8:00 a.m. and returned to his home. Claimant did not contact the Carrier to mark off absent. The Assistant Gang Foreman declared that Claimant's failure to report to work caused a slight delay in getting the large gang to begin work on July 3, 1984.

Public Law Board No. 324' Award No. 8, Page 2

Second, Claimant reported to work one hour late on June 29, 1984. He overslept. The time roll showed Claimant sought pay for one hour more than he had worked on June 29, 1984. Although the Timekeeper filled in the number of hours on Claimant's' time card for June 29, 1984, Claimant acknowledged that he gave the Timekeeper authority to sign Claimant's name.

Third, on the daily progress reports for June 28 and June 29, 1984, Claimant noted that the gang had completed more work than was actually accomplished. In particular, Claimant turned in a report showing the track had been raised, lined and tamped between mile post 720 and mile post 722. A small portion of this segment of track was finished but not near the amount represented on the progress reports. The gang apparently had problems with some machines and encountered other unavoidable production delays. Claimant reported substantially more footage than the Surfacing Gang performed on the two dates over the objections of the Assistant Foreman. Claimant explained that he wanted to avoid reporting two consecutive low productivity days. He intended to make up the work on subsequent good production days. As of July 5, 1984, the Roadmaster verified that the work purportedly performed on June 28 and 29, 1984 remained uncompleted.

Following the investigation, the Carrier suspended Claimant from service for thirty days. During the on the property appeal, both the Carrier and the Organization alluded to a special agreement allegedly made between local Carrier and Organization officials concerning the amount of discipline Claimant would

Put.lic Law Board No. 3211

Award No. 8, Page 3