1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when on November 1s, 7000, Mr. D. E. Cler was issued a Level-S, 30-day actual suspension for violation of Maintenance of Way Operating Rule 1.6 in connection whh his alleged failure to provide factual information and dishonesty In connection with per diem payments claimed in the PATS Tirrkespinp System covering the period June 1, 2000 through September !, 2000, while assigned as Head Welder worickiq at Sidney. Nebraska and headquartered at Sterling, Colorado.

2. As a consequence of tin Carrier's violation referred to above Mr. Cisr shall be compensated for ate wages lost and the discipline than be removed from his personal record In accordance with the Agreement.

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds tint the parties herein are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Rslhwy Labor Act, as amended. Further, Via Board is duly constituted by Apreernsnt, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.

Claimant Is a Lead Welder who, during tire period of the claim, was headquartered at Starting, Colorado. working in the vicinity of Sidney, Nebraska. Claimant lived at Haminpford, Nebraska, close to 100 miles from Sidney, but he opted to drive daily. The employee working with Claimant functioning as a grinder lived at Sidney, Nebraska.

The Roadmaster tesMtied he approached Claimant and the grinder stating he would bmporarty change their headquarters to Sidney about 40 mass from Sterling, Colorado, and pay them mileage. The reason given by the Roadmaster was that by starting and ending the workday at Sidney, they would not haw to drive out of Starling every morning.

ClskrraK supported by the grinder, Wstlllad that the Roadmasbr was anxious to have the two work the welding truck for the summer and said N they would stay until ellher was displaced or until the and of summer. he would corer their expenses.

The Rosdmaster, in his Wabmony, also sald he made k absolutely clear to both that he would only cover the daiy mileage expense and nothing else.

When Claimant vas queried about the daily par diem he had claimed, In addition to the dally mileage, he stated that he was advised by another welding crew working at Sidney, that they were paid the daily per diem, and therefore he believed nothing was wrong with him claiming the per diem In addition to the mileage.

So them exists conflicting testimony, Claimant and his assistant (tit grinder) saying that the Roadmastsr referred only to taking care of their expenses and the Roadmaster stating M was clear In his discussion about authorising only their driving miles.

Claimant and the grinder received =21.75 per day for five days per week from June to eary Septsntber. In addition, they received mileage from Sterling to Sidney and return for five days per weak at 10 miles per day, miles they did not actually drive.

It Is clear horn the record neither Claimant nor the grinder advised the Roadmastar that they were claiming per diem expenses, but they relied on Rule 36 and

Rule 36 seems to cover the per diem claim under the circumstances outlined heroin, but the daily mileage claims that wan submitted and paid does work contrary to Rule 36. It would appear their were traveling from their headquar6an point In Sterling to Sidnsy daily, yet the per diem expense shows they wen not traveling.

k further developed that someone from payroll did contact Claimant In June asking about the per diem claim. Claimant told the payroll person that their temporary headquarters was changed to Sidney and 1! had been authorized by the Roadmaster.

So someone in payroll knew about the par diem and was satisfied with Claimanrs explanation that their headquarters had been changed temporarily by the Rwdmasta. This appeared to sedsfy the payroll Inquiry. but no one from payroll queried the Roadmaster until an sudtW contacted hire some tins on October 10, 2000.

When ail the factors are considered, the Board does believe that the Claimants understood they won being allowed a mileage expense, but that the per diem claims made by them wen done of their own volition without the Roadmastsrs OK Furthermore, when queried about claiming both mileage and per diem, Claimant's witness stated that they chose the mileage in lieu of lodging.

When payroll questioned Clefmant In early June, he should have verlfled Clabnanl's response with the Roadmassar which he did not do. Claimant should have advised the Roadmaster he was claiming per diem, which he did not do.

Under the cirournstances, Claimant cannot be held fully responsible for what occurred. The 30 day actual is reduced to 16 days with Clabnant being paid for lost wages commencing on the 16* day, through and including the 30"' day as provided for In

Robert L Hfa, Chairman d, Neutral Member