PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4104
· Case No. 12
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
VS.
Burlington Northern Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
1. The dismissal of Track Inspector, R.L. Stauffer
for alleged 'violation of Rule 500A of the Maintenance
of Way Department Rules and Rule 564 of the Burlington
Northern Safety Rules' was without just and sufficient
cause and on the basis of unproven charges. (System
File 3 Gr MWA 84-2-9)
w
2. Claimant Stauffer shall be reinstated with seniority
and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be
compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: By letter dated October 15, 1983, Claimant
was ordered to appear for an investigation regarding his alleged
falsifying of his time roll on Sunday, October 9 and Tuesday
October 11, 1983.
The hearing was held October 21, 1983. By letter dated
November 10, 1983, Claimant was dismissed from service.
The Organization timely appealed Carrier's decision.
Carrier rejected the appeal. Thereafter, the organization
advanced the claim to this Board for adjudication.
The Organization contends that Claimant did work eight
hours on each day in dispute. According to Claimant, his motor
car was not running properly and that he used his personal
automobile to inspect track within his territory. Under these
circumstances, the Organization stresses, Claimant did perform
full service on the days in question. Therefore, it asks
that the claim be sustained in its entirety.
Ll/oLf-i'I
Case No. 12
Carrier maintains that Carrier's agents observed Claimant
far from his work site for substantial periods of time on
October 9 and 11, 1983. Yet, it notes, his time rolls reveal
eight hours of work. Thus, it submits, the rolls were falsified.
Given this factor, Carrier asserts that Claimant's discharge
was justified.
A review of the record convinces this Board that Claimant's
discharge must be upheld. Carrier's witnesses testified that
k
Claimant was at his work site for approximately one hour and
twenty minutes on October 9, 1983. Thus, Claimant clearly did
not perform work at the proper site on that day, despite
recording that he worked the full eight hours.
Moreover, Claimant testified that he used his personal auto
to inspect track. However, his report states that he used
Carrier's motor car. Clearly, this inconsistency must weigh
heavily against Claimant.
Stated simply, the, the record evidence reveals that
Claimant utilized his personal auto during substantial portions of
the work day for activities unrelated to his position. Despite
this, he recorded that he worked a full eight hours on each day.
Carrier has a right to expect honesty from his employees.
Claimant did not exhibit honesty. In fact, he is guilty of
theft of time on the days in question. Thus, despite long
seniority Claimant's discharge must be upheld. Accordingly,
and for the foregoing reasons, the claim must be rejected.
_2_
~~ott
Case No. 12
FINDINGS: The Public Law~Board No. 4104 upon the whole record
and all of the evidence, find and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employees involved in this dispute
are respectively Carrier and Employees within the meaning of
the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934;
That the Public Law Board No. 4104 has the jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
AWARD:
Claim denied.
~~ u? i
-P. Swanson,'oye Member E. allinen, Carrier Member
Ma in . 46heinman, Neutral Membe
L'