PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3445
Award Number: 48
Case Number: 48
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
AND
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Claimant, Ronald Walker, was dismissed from service, on April 17,
1987 for alleged conduct unbecoming an employe in connection with
theft of a VCR from a company trailer. Claim was filed in
accordance with Railway Labor Act and other agreement provisions.
Employes request reinstatement with pay for all lost time with
vacation and seniority rights unimpaired.
FINDINGS
By letter dated.March 17, 1987 the Carrier advised Claimant to attend a
formal investigation on charges that he had exhibited conduct unbecoming an
employe in connection with the alleged theft of a VCR on June 21, 1985.
The formal investigation was held on April 2, 1987. By letter dated April
17, 1987, Claimant was dismissed based on evidence adduced at the investigation.
The question to be resolved in this dispute is whether Claimant was
dismissed for just cause under the Agreement; and if not, what should the
3445-~ 8
remedy be.
On June 21, 1985, employe B. Parrish reported the theft of his VCR
from/ the gang trailer'in which he was staying in Danville, Virginia.
Neither the.Danville nor the Carrier's police developed a suspect in their
investigations of the theft and the case was closed on 4ugust 7, 1985. In -
early December, the~Danville Police notified the Carrier, through Parrish,
that they had recovered the VCR and traced its theft to Claimant through a f
series of pawn slips. .When questioned by the police; Claimant confessed to
the theft. At the.investigation,,--Claimant testified that he bought the VCR
from a stranger for $25 on the day of the theft and then pawned it later
that day for $100. Ile also asserted that he had been coerced into signing
an admission by the,Danville Police.
The position of the Organization is that Claimant was dismissed
unjustly. The Organization contends that the Carrier_did not respond to its
appeal of Claimant's dismissal within the time limits established in Rule 42
and that by virtue of this procedural defect, Claimant,is entitled to the
relief claimed without consideration to the merits of the case. The
Organization later seems to assert by implication that despite the Carrier's
allegation of having responded to,the appeal, the Organization did not
receive the response. The Organization cites numerous awards, but gives no , _'
explanation of their significance to the matter before the Board. The i
organization presents no argument on the proof of Claimant's guilt of
conduct unbecoming.'
2
The position of the Carrier is that Claimant was proven guilty of
conduct unbecoming an employe and was properly dismissed for breach of.his
obligation not to commit criminal acts. The Carrier cites the circumstantial evidence against Claimant that was developed by the Danville Police and
his admission tq them as clear proof of his guilt. The Carrier further
maintains that the gravity of Claimant's offense justifies dismissal.
After review of the entire record, the Board finds that Claimant was
dismissed for just cause.
The Carrier has established through substantive credible evidence in
the record that Claimant had stolen the VCR from ,a fellow employe. The
evidence adduced at the investigation, including Claimant's admission and
the circumstantial evidence against him, provide amore than reasonable
foundation for the Carrier's discipline of Claimant. Criminal activity of
the sort committed by Claimant is intolerable and clearly conduct unbecoming
an employe. Claimant owed Parrish more respect than to steal from him or
any other employe.. Moreover, Claimant owes the Carrier a duty not to
behave in a dishonest, criminal and anti-social manner. Claimant breached
that obligation and the Carrier responded in a reasonable fashion which was
neither'arbitrary,capricious nor discriminatory.
The Organization's procedural argument is not persuasive.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Date: ja~n/c
34LI5-L48
N~
10/1
" ~ic o asH. Zumas, ul Member
Carrier'r Member
Yrgan' ation Member