PARTIES The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 _TO
 DISPUTE and
 The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company

 STATEMENT 1. Carriers decision to remove Albuquerque
 _OF CLAIM Division Track Foreman R. A. David from
 service effective February 8, 1986, was
 unjust.
 2. Accordingly, Carrier should be required to
 reinstate claimant David, with seniority
 rights unimpaired, and compensate him for
 all wages lost from February 8, 1986.
 FINDINGS

 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties herein are the Carrier and the Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated November 26, 1985, and has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
 ya~i-3 ~

Claimant had six years of service with the Carrier, and was employed as a Track Foreman on the date giving rise to this claim. Claimant was charged with claiming pay on time sheets for several members of his gang, on dates when they did not work. An investigation was held on February 1, 1985, and Claimant was found guilty, and discharged from the service.


It is clear from the record, that Claimant filled out and approved time sheets for several employees, on dates when he knew they did not work. His admission of guilt can be found in the following exchange in the transcript:


      Q. Mr. David, I will show you these timesheets.

      Are these your timesheets?

      A. Yes, sir.

      Q. You prepared them?

      A. Yes, I did.

      Q. You signed them?

      A. Yes, I did.

      Q. They are for the first half, December, 1984?

      A. Yes, sir.

PLB N0. 4021
 AWARD N0. 30
 CASE N0. 26

              x t t


      Q. Would you look at Mr. Deans timesheet and tell

      this committee what it indicates for December 11?

      A. It indicates that he had a full days work.

      Q. Eight hours?

      A. Eight hours.

      Q. Did Mr. Dean actually work on December 11th?

      A. No, sir.


Claimant's guilt was not denied, and he offered no reasonable excuse for his actions. At page 5 of the transcript, the following exchange took place:

      Q. But you knew they were absent?

      A. I knew they were absent.


          Q. Why did you pay them for eight hours pay when you knew they were absent?


          A. I made the timesheets on that very last afternoon. I made one timesheet complete and then I just copied all the rest as if one.


The investigation was fairly conducted, although the Claimant
 elected to proceed without union representation. In this case,

~aa%-3o


the Hearing Officer conducted himself with fairness and impar
 tiality. The Claimant's last chance came at page 7, where the -
 Hearing Officer asked:

      Q. I am having difficulty understanding why you

      knew that they didn't work, why you paid them.

      Do you have a better explanation?

      A. No, sir.


Claimant was guilty of the charges, and they were serious in nature. Indeed, there are few charges more serious than the willful falsification of timesheets. In this case, the claimant's failure to offer any reasonable explanation left the Carrier no choice but to terminate his employment. We will deny the claim.

 AWARD -

 Claim denied.

2 _~', ~/ -)

. F. Foose, Employee Member L. L. Pope, Carrier Member

                    azt ~~

                  J R son, Chairman

                  a e ral Member


Dated: