The Claimant was directed to appear at an investigative

It is alleged that you engaged in an attempted act of misappropriation, and were dishonest when you advised both Roadmaster D. Rodricks and the Payroll Department that you were not paid for March 17, 1995. After you were informed that your time card showed you were absent, Code 62, on March 17, 1995, you proceeded to submit a new

time card for payment (at a higher rate of pay than you were entitled to).

When you were confronted with the fact that your Foreman D. Bertini had documented your absence on the date you then indicated that you had worked for Foreman Harris on March 17. However, Foreman Harris did not work on that date. Further, you did not work for Foreman Bertini.

The Claimant was also subject to a second charge, but the hearing officer did not find sufficient proof of guilt in this instance. The Claimant was subsequently dismissed from service, based on the first charge.

The Board finds also that there is insufficient proof of the Claimant's responsibility for seeking a higher rate of pay to which he was not entitled.

The principal issue concerns the Claimant's request for pay for March 17, 1995, after he. found his pay check eight hours "short" for that week. While the Claimant may initially have forgotten that, in actuality, he did not work on March 17, the extensive investigation and record demonstrate that he was advised of this but nevertheless improperly pursued his attempt to receive pay for the day. He even went so far as to claim that he had worked that day for his regular Foreman, who in fact did not himself work that day.

The Board concurs with the Carrier that the Claimant's action was an offense warranting dismissal. If there is any doubt as to the severity of the penalty, it is noted that this short-term employee had previously received discipline for a similar offense.

-2-