Case No. 181

(The Ourilnpeon N*Mern Same Fe Rsllroed

1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when on January 12, 2001, Mr. AI. R. Barges was removed from service and subsequently dismissed from service on March 1, 2001 for allegedly violating UsInlenanae of Way Operating Rub 1.9 and Engineering Instxuetbns 21.1 and 21.2 In conjunction with his allegedly absent without authority on January 1, 9 and 10, 2001 and for allegedly not showing proper conduct towards lodging employs" an January 1 and 10, 2001 at Dunne, Texas.

2. An a consequence of the Canlsre violation referred to above Mr. Bargas shall be returned to service, the discipline shat be removed from Mr. Barges' personal record and its shall be compensated for al wages lost, N any, In accordance wMh the AprehnenR

upon the whole record and a0 the evidence, the Board finds tbat the parties herein an carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly consdbfd by Apresment; has jurbdicbon of she Parries and of 1M subject matter, end the Parts to this dispute wars given duo nofhs cf the hearing thereon.

TM charges of being absent without authority on January 1, 9 4L 10, 2001, should be changed to January 9 & 10, 2001. It was established at the investigation that Claimant had authority to be off on January 1, 2001.

Claimant admld he was off January 9, 2001, but permission, and on January

10, 2001, he showed up for work at a point he was to pick up and drive a fuel truck to the spot when the pang was working. Claimant contends he looked high and low for flee keys to the twl truck, but could not find Mom. In lieu of contacting anyone about the truck keys loeaflon, Claimant simply want hams without notifying anyone.

The Carrier has furnished sufficient evidence of Claimant being AWOL on January tl ti 10, 2001.

Regarding Clakrrn!'s conduct while a quest at the motel, the Board finds credibility In the statement signed by five employs" complaining of Clahnamt's conduct and a police report confirming the eviction of Claimant from that motel.

Without delving Into the reasons for the eviction, the Board finds that motels, hotels, oft., do not resort to polka evictions of their guests unless the conduct of an Individual becomes so obnoxious andlor Is so beyond control that said conduct was disrupting the mobs routine.

The Organization has protssbd the inclusion of statements from hotel clerks as being hearsay, but what has Irnpressad this Board is the statement from the police confirming tire eviction of CVlmant

Under the existing circumstances addVted at the Investigation, the Board finds

AWARD