. :'_=.; zrotherhood of P· aintenance of nay unployea

 i:::e Atchison, Topeka and Santa : e .tailwa;~ -"ompany

 3 ..^:1 i .:' ~Z: T
 c.d MAI:4 ":1aim that former.zlouquerque Division :rack:r;an
 ~ames reams .,e reinstated with seniority, vacation
 ana, all basic rights restored and that he :,,e
 compensated for all wage loss and/or .sale w ola,
 ..~eginning ::ovemoer 10, 1961, account unjustly
 removed from service for bringing discredit upon
 his fellow employes and the _arrier :,y :;eccmin3
 involved in an unlawful act, as a result of
 investigation held "ctoner 16, 19:71."
 :=;.i7:VLS Lpon the whole record, the Board finds that the
 parties herein are Carrier and Zaployes,vithin the meaning of the
 Railway Labor Act, an amended, and that this zoard is duly constituted
 under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of this parties and
 the subject matter.
 In this dispute the Claimant ran notified to attend an investigation on October 16, 1981, concerning&

              ":sect your alleged violation of tulas 2 and lo, General Rules for the Guidance of Z~mplayes, Form 2626 Standard, when you brought discredit upon your :allow employes and the Santa Fe Railway Company by allegedly becoming involved in an unlawful act at ?lagstaff, Arizona on Thursday, September 10, 1981, x=."


      Rule 16 reads in parts


              "Enployess must not be indifferent to duty, insubordinate, dishonest, immoral, quarrelseas or vicious. Employees must conduct

                                      Award No. 8 -,j38$

                                      Page No. 2


              themselves in a manner that will not or _.^.q dif=redit on their fellow employees or su~ject the _ompany to criticism or loss of good will.'

,wring tna course of the investigation held an _ctooer 16, 10:31, -laimant admitted that due to the incident that occurr~c at :lagstaff, .lrizona on September 10, 1931, he had been charged
      armed burglary and attempted homicide.

it the time this incident arose, "-laimant, after oniv appro:cimately 5 months of service, was serving a 180 :lay suspension, with out pay, for being under the influence of intoxicants. he organization has made extensive arguments regarding the appropriateness of Carrier's action since %:laimant was not an active employee it further contends that the investigation was not timely held since Carrier failed to hold the investl4ation within 30 da_rs of the alleged incident.
 The fact that the incident occurred while -llaimant was serving a 180 day suspension does not take away Zarriar·s right to disci pline him. ~laimant was still an employe and vas, therefore, . subject to certain rules of the carrier. After a careful review of the record, the Loard holds that Carrier did not violet: the provisions of rule 13 and therefore, the investigation was timely held.
 Numerous awards of the National Railroad adjustment ~aaxd have long held that conduct off the Carrier°s property while off duty
 Fr6T 'ZZ A=enlqag
 obeoluo qe paqeo

      ma:.: uoTsszTueb:0 aa:: sst


        .

            V ~ ~ wrw s mn>


Tsq=a -; TssanaIN
 C07. U !T~ 'v i'UDSWTn

                                    'paTuap MFTTO CT~'t ·'~.·'


'apTsp auFTdTasTp aLTZ 15uTqaas 20; uoTqfDF;iqsnr ou ST asaua saDueqrmrno=Tz aqq zopul .&aTTjdozddv

sl T=saTmsTp ao A~Truad qoTqw so; saq-4sm cnozsar E ST paLspy0 seh '4uem,TX'T; 1401"n so; auaptouT aril. 'autTdFZSTE Zo; cpunozb an. uya


            -ON 9Ssd

            'ON j73EMy


          8o££ - H'Id