Superintendent of Police David L. Redford and Special Agent Mark E. Prindle responded to the call and met with the Claimant at the Franklin County jail. During their visit, Special Agent Prindle informed the Claimant of his constitutional rights, which the Claimant waived, and the Claimant agreed to submit to questioning.
Special Agent Prindle testified that during questioning the Claimant stated that even though he did not have the Carrier's permission, he took the wire from a scrap pile along the Carrier's right-of-way and that a friend had given him the battery. He further stated that he had other Carrier property in his possession at his residence, i.e., a switch broom, a ballpeen hammer, a pipe wrench, a track jack and a lining bar. The Claimant again admitted to Prindle that he had not received permission or authority from the Carrier to remove these items from the Carrier's property. Prindle and Redford then obtained the claimant's written permission to search the Claimant's vehicle, barn, garages and out buildings. Later that afternoon on October 31 Prindle and Redford conducted a search of the Claimant's property and found additional Carrier items. Their search resulted in the recovery of three track jacks; one track wrench; one pipe wrench; one spike maul; one switch broom; one track lining bar; one pair of tie tongs; one fusee box and one hard hat. Including the two rolls of wire, the value of the carrier tools, equipment and material totalled $809.47.
At the formal investigation the Claimant declined to answer any questions concerning the items found on his property under the advise of his attorney. The organization contends that the investigation should have been postponed pending the disposition of the criminal charges filed against the Claimant in this matter.
The Board has read and studied all the evidence of record. The Board finds that the Carrier complied with all terms of the collective bargaining agreement in its handling of this matter. There is no evidence that the Carrier violated Rule -13 and Appendix 11 of the agreement between the parties dated January 1, 1984 as amended.
The Board further finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record for the carrier to find the Claimant guilty of the alleged rules violation. As evidenced by Prindle's testimony, the Claimant admitted that he had various items in his possession that belonged to the Carrier and that he did not have the authority or the Carrier's permission to have these items on his property. Furthermore, the Carrier's investigating officers found other items on the Claimant's property that the Claimant failed to disclose to the officers on October 3, 1986 when questioned. Under these circumstances there is no justification to set the discipline aside. Appropriation of Carrier property is a serious offense which warrants dismissal.