BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4633
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OE WAY EMPLOYES
and
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD COMPANY
Case No. 13
Dispute: Claim of the Brotherhood:
That Lead Mechanic P.J. Probus be reinstated to service from
his dismissal of June 9, 1988, and that he be compensated
for all monetary losses that he has sustained.
Findings:
The Claimant was employed as a lead mechanic by Carrier. On
April 26, 1988, Claimant was instructed to attend an investigation:
to determine the facts and your responsibility, if any, in
connection with you being observed by IHB Police on April 22,
1988, at approximately 4:15 p.m., removing two new Eagle Safety
gas cans, two new Pallux toggle switches, one Tilko auto-type
rotor cap, and one package of paper towels from IHB Company
vehicle, a 1987 Chevrolet van, Indiana license j 307722, and
placing same in your garage located at 1658 174th Street,
Hammond, Indiana. Also found in your garage were two used 5gallon cans which you stated were also IHB property.
The investigation was held on May 24, 1988, and as a result, Claimant
was dismissed from service. The organization thereafter filed a claim
on Claimant's behalf, challenging his dismissal.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case
and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the finding that the Claimant was guilty of improperly removing
various items of Carrier property and putting them into his garage.
Although the Claimant argues that he was putting them in his garage
for safe keeping, the record reveals that he did not have permission
to remove those items from the Carrier truck or, in some cases, from
the Carrier property.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
,'
' . f
L 3 - 46 1 3 - 13
in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our
attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set
aside a carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary. or capricious.
The record reveals that the Claimant had approximately ten and
one-half years of unblemished service with the Carrier prior to this
incident. Although this Board has found the Claimant guilty of
improper removal of several items of Carrier property, this Board is
not convinced that the Claimant is a thief. This Board views this
case as a rule violation case as opposed to a theft case, and
therefore we find that the termination of the Claimant's employment
for this offense was excessive.
This Board hereby orders that the Claimant shall be reinstated to
service but without back pay. There was not just cause for the
Carrier to terminate the Claimant's employment.
AWARD
Claim sustained in part. Claimant is to be returned to service
but without back pay.
Neutral M m er
Carr em a Organization member Date:
2
;7'1;0;
2