due him. It alleges that during the period in question, Claimant was not aware that Foreman Claus claimed the expenses for each day Claimant worked, and completed the expense account on his own. When Claimant received his payroll check on October 30,-1984, he maintains that he did not review the check for the amount but signed it and gave it to his wife. The Organization asserts that he was not aware of any problem with his expense account until hereceived the investigation notice on November 7, 1984 for which he contacted Carrier to attempt to rectify the situation. In the organization's view, dismissal is inappropriate since the incident did not involve any intention on behalf of Claimant to claim expenses not due to him. Accordingly, it asks that the claim be sustained.
Carrier, on the other hand, asserts that Claimant attempted to secure money to which he was not entitled. It maintains that testimony contained within the transcript reveals that he was not instructed to submit claims for expenses. Although the organization maintains that Claimant was not aware that he had been paid for the expenses, Carrier does not believe this to be substantiated. It asserts that Claimant received his payroll check on October 30, 1984 covering the first half October pay period. After receiving that paycheck,- it maintains that he submitted an expense account form for expenses covering that same period. Under these circumstances, carrier argues that it properly found Claimant guilty as charged. Additionally, Carrier points out that this is Claimant's second offense involving dishonesty. On September 22,
1981, he was dismissed for selling and disposing of railroad property without authorization, and was reinstated on January 4, 1982 as a matter of managerial leniency. Because of this previous offense, Carrier insists that dismissal is appropriate here. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, carrier asks that the claim be denied.
A complete review of the record with respect to the charges indicates that Claimant did submit an expense account form for which he had previously been compensated. However, Claimant's discharge is unjustified in that he did not deliberately attempt to seek double payment for expenses. Some question exists that Claimant was not aware that the Roadmaster was completing the expense form for him since he was temporarily assigned to another gang. Therefore, this duplication was understandable, even though a violation of Carrier rules did exist.
Under these circumstances, a disciplinary suspension and not discharge is appropriate. At the hearing on September 21, 1987 I directed that Claimant be returned to service. However, I conclude that no back pay is in order. This suspension reminds Claimant of the serious misconduct that occurred in this incident. However, it also takes into account the mitigating circumstances previously referred to. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the claim is sustained to the extent indicated in the opinion.