PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5418
Case No. 71 Award No. 71
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
To -and
DISPUTE: Pan Am Railways

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

Claim in behalf of Raymond P. Williams who was dismissed from service effective July 17, 2008.

FINDINGS: This dispute arose as a result of the Carrier charging the claimant with the

following offense:

"your responsibility, if any, in connection with the following charge:

Application Omission & Violation of General Rule PGR-L.

Specifically, on June 4, 2008 it was discovered that you omitted any reference to the fact that you had previously been employed by Springfield Terminal Railways and consequently terminated. This is in direct violation of the application that you signed on June 20'h of 2005. This application reads as follows.

"By signing this application, I certify this application is complete and

' accurate and that I leave not made any attempt to conceal information.

Futhermore, I understand that falsification is cause for dismissal. I

confirm that statements made by me herein and other information given by

me pursuant to my becoming an employee are true, complete, correct and

made in good faith. I understand that any misstatements, omission or

misrepresentation will be sufficient cause to cancel this application,

terminate an offer of employment or immediate dismissal if already

employed. I understand this application will be active for a period of 6

month; after that time, if l wish to be considered for employment, I will

have to fill out a new application." (Emphasis added)

Also, the Brio-la,tion o' «cneral n_av ?C -R-lr. which ;eadS 6n part "n-frtployees

who are dishonest: ...U1.114?I ~7o~ b,,_ k,t_ai wd i ~h4 :, ser~-:~_.`'

FolloNving a ii nasal investpggatEc6i, ~oaidp 'was postponed twice and e-ventually held fn

;1'tSentia, Ph~s 4~'~tre~Fnqn4 Eh; ~,_z!'t~-s? F.f~ ·p^.d?c<it"``° b _ ;r, Id dismissed tiivn
_.. _ '~ _ _.. _ _ b General ~t5le PC1 °L.,

i^=0a:E ci v..;C e;ficc,iw, ..h,%i,' 't~. :.~i~t'i.
Undisputed records show the claimant was given a timely notice to appear for an investigation regarding the above stated charges, and that after 2 postponements he failed to appear at the re-scheduled investigation which was held m absentia. While the Board prefers to review investigations that include claimant's testimony, given the facts presented, we found no improprieties in the handling of this case and conclude the investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

After a thorough review of the testimony and documents brought forth in the record, the Board finds the claim to be non-meritorious. The employment application that the claimant signed was clear and unambiguous, and stated quite clearly what the consequences would be for concealing information. The record shows the claimant purposely omitted the fact that he had been previously dismissed) by the Carrier. There is absolutely no excuse for such a deliberate and dishonest omission of fact, and the claimant must therefore bear the consequence of his actions.
Therefore. based on the evidence present, the Board finds the Carrier was on solid ground when they terminated this employee. Hence, we will not alter their decision. AWARD: The claim is denied.

t

FrancI L?orytz~I

f~. J

) C~4

F. t.amonto B. . ~. Wi ter
Carrier Miembex Organization Member