Upon d»» whole retold and ale the evidence, the Board ftis that the parties herein are carrier end employee within the meaning at the Railway Labor Act, u amended. Purltwr, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, hae Jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and M» Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
Pass
The Investigation was hold on December 13, 2000, following which the Carrier, believing it had turntsh*d sutAcknt evidence of Clakmr&s culpability for the charges assessed, fssu*C on January 10, 2001, tthe fblk*4no disciplinary letter.
tram the trsnscrlp#, it h apparent that Claimant commenced the t·rtwtiesapinp chore tar the gong ·n May when h* was the Assistant Foreman and later when t» b*uma the Foreman.
The Investigation Involved the use of Pay Code ·i which is Intended to reimburse spectt9c employees under specific conditions par them for room and meals.
The ·nv*stRgattan delved into the history of Pay Code 41, how it originated, to whom it was applicable to up to the time senlorttY rosters were consot·dated.
Pram the Board's limited and*ratandtn8. Pay Gods 41 k to be used only for certain employees formerly of one of the carriers that became a part of the Burlington
Page 3 rd No. -The Investigation *Is* devetoped that an Assistant RoadmEaster reviirvwed Claimant's payroll entries and found nothing wrong or at least he, a Carrier Supervisor, did not understand how Pay Code 41 was to be used, thus he did not question the us* thereof.
it also developed that at one point; Claimant was behind to payroll reporting and phoned the payroll to a time revisor who Inputted the verbally reported time including the entry of Pay Code 41 and did so without questioning Its use.
being misused on a :yetem-wide baste. In fact the Carrier went to the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Waxy Ampioyes and sought their assistance in curtailing the uso thereof as weft as soma outer misused, abused or negligent use of expense codes, miisap claims, lodging and mesh claimed, Oft,
Evidence was established that the Union cooperated fully and wrote each of their members about the alleged abuse or misuse of expense claims, arc.
When this Board reviewed the history of Pay Coda 41 and the manner In which 1t was listed to alt concerned, it became clear how the misuse of Pay Gods d'i cams to be. A review of the payroll codas and the brief explanation of each which was revised periodically clarthed for this hoard how easily the pay code could have beat used, not purposely nor fraudulently, but mistakenly.
A history of the pay code sheets Issued periodically by the Carrier was Incomplete. For Instance, the pay code sheet revised February 't, 2000 Nets Pay Code 41 as &,meals and Lodging (RtiD) (btoMly." The pay node sheet revised September Z4,199t
P4 Award No.
5read "142.li0 · Mats and t·oVog Combined (RIG) - dawn Taxable.* In the AprU 1, 1905. revision loft blank, the pty ~cu~r is aced tart no esplsnstbn. Same ftw the July 1, 19K rsvW*d to" sheet The April t, 1111113, payroll revision list* Pay Code 41 u, "U9.00 · ?.60 miles from home station moat and lodging allowance for cash calendar day - no bunk can ss*n*d." The nnrisbn aflacthre Juts t, 1 W, road for pail Code 41 as, "Par Diem Meals and 1.odpft assembling for work over 250 miles (Rule 36 Sac. 4,t)l (Group !l, 6, -A, 1't aniy.r
Aa is wid*K !he pay code ftt toe Pty Gods 41 w:flbs between s solid ojcpphtuttlon tililT tiMj to nothing Ohs 19114 & 1095 Rate) to an Incomplete explanation in the year 2000 Ikt.
The only thing Claimant knew about tray hods Eli was that It was applicable to employees residing over 280 noes from the point the craw strrlrd work, yet he did clsirm for ono of the gang v*o M knew lived loss, than 2d0 miles away Pay Code 44. This was only for s·Verat dirles In March.
It is noted !he CittlmaM's tsprosientalim vigorously protested the lnvesfta Von contending the Carrier relied to hold the Imresttpatsan promp!!y, arguing that the Carrier know o! the mlsuae as tar back as September, 2000. yet did nothing until the set !he current Invooftellom
but the Board does find the 46 dry suspension of Claimant was Oxc0solvis In view of the lacts cued heroin. Claimants* discipline far applying Pay Coda 411 to an smpkxyee who lived bee than 2i#0 miles from the point assembled when he stated that he understood that Pay Code 41 was applicable to ail employees residing over ?6D miles tram their a mbii»d point Is puts negligence. However, the date& this occurred were i» March wherein he was charged only with misapplying Pay Cods 41 May 3 through September 3i?, 2OG0*
Cvreidsfiing all the factors adduced &I the, Investigation, the Board cannot accept Carrier's as"sstna»t at s 46 day suspension BAS a proper dtscipli»w Glxtmat»t's record oars been outstanding. Whatever Cishrsant did, he did with the tacit blaming of the As*lstx»t Roadtroxter who found nothing Improper about the tk»i aiuealts Claimant had prepared a»d a Time Revisor who should have knowm
Claimant's discipline le rescinded. Hs is t4 be compensated for si! time lost an provided for i» ft Schedule Agroamoritt
This Board, a'lRer ~considsratto» of the dispute ldsetllled above, hereby orders that s» award favorable I* the Ciakna»t(s) bs Modo. The Carrier is oftdand to make ft award effective o» or before SQ days following the date the swats Is adopted.