Following the Investigatbn, the Carrier on April 19, 2001, assessed Clalmant an actual 00 day suspension.
TM "unauthorized person" referred to in the notice of Investigation was Claimant's son who had hell a regular machine operators position with his Dad's surfacing gang.
Cialmsnt's son had been hospitalised with back problems. When he was released, he furnished his dad with a copy of his medical release. Claimant then purohased for his son, with a company credit card, a flight from Texas to the work sits. Claimant's surfacing gang works all over the system. A contract requirement Is that those asaigned to such gangs, working more than 400 miles from home, the Carrier will fly those assigned to an airport nearest their home and back to work again every other week.
Claimant's son's seniority was terminated pursuant to a Letter of Understanding beb~n the parties that provides for termination for anyone off on unauthorised leave In excess of fire consecutive work days. One caveat to the employee noted Is his right to request an Irrvestfgation It he disputes the termination and makes a timely mqusat therefore.
Claimant's son did request an Investigation, and when this incident came to light, he had not been notified that the termination of his seniority had been confirmed. TM son's name remained on the seniority roster. and him name rerneinsd on the surfacing gang's payroll semen as manpower in Karnes City who tracks these things considered him terminated awaiting the resuks of an Investigation, but NR him on the roster and the
pages PL8 u'D. SBSoClaimant defended his actions by stating he was not aware of his son's status, Le. lsrminalsd but awaiting confirmation.
Claimant also defended his action In furnishing his son transportation at the Carrier's expense by stating he had a release from the doctor who treated his son while he was confined to a hospital, which he argued was sufficient for him to got his son back working with the thought this matter of the medical release from Carrier's medical people could be handled by the Roadmaster Ober Claimant's son had resumed service.
Claimant was, me of tile dab of this Incident, a twenty-one year veteran of the Carrier and had worked as a Foreman on the surfacing gang for the past two years.
His statement that he did not know of his son's status is difficult to accept as his son My" with him. However, Claimant goes home awry other week end just may not haw known, but manpower at Kansas City knew the son's status and although Claimant stated he had teen in touch with manpower for filling vacancies on the surfacing gang, he never advised them that he ryas returning his son to service.
Furthermore, Claimant allowing his son to return to service after being hospitalWd without clearance from the Carrier's medical services cannot be accaptsd as simply an '1 didn't know' alibi. To reiterate, Claimant had 21 years of service with the last two years as the Foreman of the surfacing gang. He, hknssN, had been inured and had been restricted do light ditty before being certified fit to return to full service, all of which was certified by the Carrier's medical services.
The charge of unauthorized use of a company credit card Is based upon the action of Claimant purchasing transportation to enable his son to return to service. It his
Page 4son had been in good standing, had been released by the Carrier's medical services, Claimant's use of the company credit card to return his son to the work site would have been legitlmsts.
In sumnuWon, the Board finds the Carrier fully substantiafsd Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed. The charges, at first blush, appear ominous and careerthreatening, but when the entire scenario Is reviewed In detail, the bottom line is not as quite deadly as it appears.
The use of the credit card was not for the beneilt of Clalmant. nor has It been demonstrated the credit card misuse was for any other purpose than to return his son to the work alb as quickly as possible.
Claimant's position Is Abed only by appointment The Carrier could have readily suspended or even terminated hire from the assignment. but that did not happen. The Carrier obviously has faith in Claimant's sbillfs In ramrodding the surfacing gang.
Under them circumstances, it Is the Board's findings that the 60 day suspension be reduced to 30 days with Claimant being paid for all time lost as provided in the Agreement
This Board, after consideration of the dispute Identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Clakns"s) be made. The Carrier Is ordered to make the award effective on or before 30 days following the date the award Is adopted. Page 5
Award No. 2 02
Case No. 202