PUBLIC LAii BOARD NG.-'4340
PARTIES
TO
DISPUTE: BROTHLM00D OF 1dAINT1niANCS Or ITAY :Pff'LOT'ES
and
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILRQ'LD
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM: "Claim
in
behalf of Roadmaster S:'Gunn that he be reinstated
to service with all rights intact, paid for all time lost and
that the charges be removed 'from his service record as a result
of his dismissal July 25, 1989."
FINDINGS: The Board finds'upon evidence of record that the parties are
Carrier and Employe--under the Railway Labor act of 1934 and
amendments thereto; 'that pursuant to agreement of the parties the Board has
jurisdiction over the parties and the siu:jact-matter, and that oral hearing _
has been duly waived by all-the parties, including Claimant.
Claimant was dismissed on
r!§y
25T, 1 89'!tdue'.o'subi6 sion of-
falsified "motel-receipts-in November and December,'1989 in violation of Rule 530,
530(A)'; and Rule 530(B) of-the Burlington Northurn~Rzllroad Rules of the :iain
tenance of Spay.
Rule 530 states,'in part: "Employes will not be retained in the
service who are
...
dishonest..:". Rule 530(.4) states: "Employes who withhold
information, or fail to give factual report of any irregularity, accident or
violation of rules, will not be retained in the service." Rule 530('3) states:
"Theft or pilferage shall be considered sufficient cause for dismissal from
railroad service."
Exhibit "C", transcript'of investigation, shows Claimant's statement that: "The Days Inn receipt -# 6047 is 'invalid and also the Clark Motel receipt is invalid. I'did not stay at the Days Inn any of these days. Days Inn
receipt # 6045 is invalid." Claimant; when asked, "Did you 'make out these receipts yourself?", answered,
"Yes
sir." When Claimant was asked, "Why did you
submit these invalid receipts on'your expense accounts?", he answered :"I was
spending a lot of money for personal masons, and this was the only way I had
to get back some of
m·
money."
l~ ~l 3 Y
AWARD NO. 24 (p. 2)
CASE NO. 24
The evidence of record shows substantial probative evidence in
support of the Carrier's det--rmination that Claimant violated Rules 530, 530(A),
and 530(8) of the Burlington Northern Rules of the Maintenance of Nay.
The Board has considered Claimant's contention that he actually
incurred the expenses that he submitted-on his November and December, 1988
expense reports, and his contention that what he did in falsifying receipts
for lodging was just doing what has been~allowed for years and years -- that
this was established practice. Express -or implied authorization of expense
for lodging under various operational conditions is'quite different from the
kind of falsification here involved by the Claimant: The facts of record
show that Claimant's expenditures involved "personal" expenditures that were
definitely outside the business expense category, and Claimant frankly admitted to their "perscnal"nature. If Claimant, as an Officer and employee of
the Carrier had knowledge of specific fraudulent: falsifications of motel receipts by other employees, it was his obligation under Rule-530(A) to report
and correct this wrongful behavior. ~itrongful'behavior of other employees, if
in fact it took place, did not license Claimant to engage in it himself.
The falsification of the receipts; showing dates and rooms and
signatures 'and-amounts, repeatedly; with full awareness of the falsities and
with the intention tb'falsify
so
as to obtain moneys from the-Carrier for nonbusiness expenditures, 'and succeeding in obtaining the moneys, co<sl~ituted.a
grave offense in violation of the rules and fully warranted dismissal. _
A; .W A R D
1. The Carrier is not in violation of the Agreement.
2. The claim is denied.
JOSEPH i~ZAR, CIIAIRMV A'_D NVTITIRAL MMIDR ' ', -
SEP 5
DATED: August 21, 199 ~0
~.j - n. _.,.
"S~O~FF,[/ICE
.. ·u '~
.,.,!;Lx~
BMWE