Parties
to the
Dispute
PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3765.
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
VS.
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The dismissal of Machine Operator D. R. Hayes
for alleged unauthorized sale of railroad ties
and personally receiving payment for the sale of
those ties on June 1, 1988 was arbitrary, capricious and on the basis of unproven charges.
Claimant Hayes shall be reinstated in Carrier's
service with seniority, vacation credits, railroad retirement credits and all other benefits
restored and shall be paid for all time lost
including overtime he would have worked.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Claimant, D. R. Hayes, was employed as a Machine Operator with
a tie gang working in the area of Imlay City, Michigan. On June 1,
1988, Carrier's Patrolman Tolliner was notified by local police that
Case No. 35
37~s-3s
a truck carrying numerous railroad ties had been sighted. Carrier
investigated and found a Hoeksema & Jager truck containing 68 ties
marked GT and also marked for removal. The truck driver indicated
that he bought the ties for one dollar each from a slender, dark haired,
bearded man who loaded the ties with a Grand Trunk machine. Claimant
fit the description given by the driver. Carrier thereupon issued
Claimant the following letter:
You are hereby notified to attend a formal investigation to be held in the conference room, Grand Trunk
Administration Building, 700 Pershing St., Pontiac,
MI, 48056 at 0900 hours on Thursday, June 9, 1988
to determine your responsibility if any, for:
1. Unauthorized sale of railroad ties
to Mr. Warren Hoeksema at Imlay City,
MI on June 1, 1988.
2. Personally receiving payment for the
sale of said Grand Trunk railroad ties.
These are in violation of Grand Trunk General Rules
for employees not otherwise subject to the Rules for
conducting transportation effective July 1, 1976, as
follows:
Rule 11(c) The unauthorized possession of, removal
of, disposal of, and material from company property or property served by the
company is prohibited.
Rule 10 Employees are expected to protect the
company's property and the property of
its customers. If an employee knows
that such property is endangered in any
way, he must take reasonable steps to
protect the property and to notify super
iors of the danger.
37(,s_3s
A hearing into the matter was held on June 9, 1988, as scheduled.
As a result of that hearing, Claimant was found guilty as charged and
dismissed from Carrier's service.
This Board has reviewed the record and has concluded that Claimant was afforded all procedural and substantive rights guaranteed by
Agreement. The Board is also persuaded by the record that Claimant
was responsible for selling the ties in question to Hoeksema & Jager -
and loading them on one of their trucks. While there is no eye-witness
to the incident, there is sufficient probative, circumstantial evidence
in the record to support Claimant's guilt. This is further buttressed
by Claimant's guilty plea to criminal charges stemming from the same
incident.
Based on the record before it, this Board has no choice but to
deny this claim.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
R. bertnis, Neutral Member
Jo. A. DeRoche, rrier Member W. F.LaRue, Employe Member
- 8 ~ 9O
Da3 te of option