_n



                                        Case No. 16


PARTIES Burlington Northern Railroad Company
 TO and
 D117UTE Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes,
 STATEMENT "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood thatr
 OF CLAIM
 (1) The dismissal of Relief Section. Foreman (Section
 Laborer), T. K. Frazer, June 27, 1980, was without
 just and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate
 to the alleged offense.
 (2) Claimant T. K. Frazer now be compensated for all
 lost time and reinstated with all seniority and other
 rights unimpaired."

 FINDINGS.
Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 Claimant herein, a Section Laborer, also worked part time as a -Relief Foreman. The dispute herein involves some periods of time in which he acted as a Relief Foreman. The facts, which are not in dispute, indicate that while working as a Relief Foreman, claimant signed and submitted a time roll which showed. that he had worked for eight hours on May 27, 1984, while, in fact, he had only worked five 'hours. Also, he had signed.a time roll indicating that another Section Laborer under his supervision was working eight hours, when he had only worked four hours on May 30, 1980. These occurrences were excused by claimant as honest mistakes. This rationale was rejected by the Carrier. Carrier took the position that claimant was fully aware of the circumstances and methods used preparing time rolls and that his error cannot be attributed to ignorance. Petitioner, on the other hand, indicates that, since claimant was only a part-time, occasional supervisor, some
                            !2 _


tolerance should be accorded him with respect to this honest mistake.

 Carrier relies in part on the reasoning contained in Award No. 14 of Public _
 Law Board No. 2206, as well as the reasoning expressed in Award No. 70 of that
 Board. As in those cases, in this instance Carrier believes, and the Board con
 curs,, that the-occurrence is one- Involving significant dishonesty which cannot
 be tolerated. Since the evidence clearly demonstrates that claimant was. guilty.of
 the charges and the discipline; in view of the nature of the offense, cannot be
 considered to be discriminatory or excessive. The claim must be denied. -

 AWARD
              CTaim denied.


      ' . N.` ie ermd~, Neutral -C airman


    o yns y, Car per Member- . . _ un , mployeF· Mem er


March-29, 1985