The Investigation was held as scheduled, and on February 12, 2002, Claimant was advised that for the reasons set forth in the notice of Investigation, he was dismissed from the services of the Carrier (Claimant had been suspended from service on December 27, 2001, pending the findings of the Investigation).
The matter of credit card misuse came to fight when tire Division Engineer was contacted by the Vehicle Fleet Department who advised Truck 93809 was in the shop for repairs and that the bill would be rather high. Since It was an older truck, would he want it repaked or was is due to be replaced shortly.
The Division Engineer did an audit of the vehicle as contained In the computer and found one notation that someone had put hydraulic fluid b with the brake fluid. The Division Engineer launched a further computer search to determine who the driver was, and found a paper trail of gas purchases made with the credit card assigned to the vehicle for dates he knew the truck was In for repairs. He found two employees who were assigned to the truck. He developed aonte further information, then called in the company police believing there might be some fraud being committed misting to the misuse of the credit card.
The company police investigated and found the card was used fraudulently some 14 tines from at least December 8 through December 75, 2001.
The police rent to several stations to determine I! they could be assisted in their investigation by describing, If they could, the party who used the card or better yet, did the stations have any camera records. They found a station in Arlington, Taxes, whore the card was used at 0754 hours on December 18, 2001, that had the latest In Page 3 ?L[3 N o · 5850 Award No. Zip
survsiltance cameras and the station did furnish the company police what they needed to develop a vkieo.
At that hour on that date, the video shows a blue Dodge Durango fueling In on one side of the pump and a red SW pull up to the opposite side which was driven by a person later positively identified as the Claimant by an experienced company police person. Claimant started pumping gas in the Durango, then switched the hose to the red SUV without shutting down the pump.
Claimant ehalbnged the video as being too grainy for an adequate Identification, contending the Individual wore braids whereas he did not TM red SUV was never Identified as belonging to Claimant, but he did own a-btus Dodge-Durango identical to the one in the video.
Claimant denied that nelther the woman driver nor the younger girl who drove the Durango wers any relation to hint
Ciaunant also produced a statement that on December 16, 2001, which reflects the use of his ATM card at Amarillo on December 16, 2001, which a about 360 rtdles from Arlington. Akhough an effort was made to determine the time the ATM card was used on December 16, 2001, the Board finds that Claimant was merely speculating that the figure 124900 was meant to be 1249 and no seconds.
The two drivers for Truck 93609 were Claimant and Lead Welder S. F. Hutton. The truck was released from the shops on December 21, 2001. On December 23, 2001, Lead Weider Hutton was called out and took Truck 93609 to complete the work required. He ran out of gas but had a 6 gallon can full in the truck and used that to get to a station in Pampa. After filling the tank, he could not locate the credit card that should have been
Page 4 PLE ND · Use Award No. 21 Kloft In the truck. Me called Claimant who, after checking his pockets, said he had the card and he would stop around on the 24'" to settle tit big. He did not pay until the 25'". After he hung up the phone with the Lead Welder, Claimant said he discovered the card he had in his pocket was the ATM card and not the company credit card assigned to vehicle 934109. On the morning of the 25'", he said he went to the repair yard, got into the truck and dug out his other shin! or jacket he had wadded up and stuffed behind the seat He found the card which he then used to pay the bill his partner had run up on December 23,2001.
The only problem with Claimant's story at this juncture is that the card was used on December 22, 24 and a second tine on the 25"', but as with t1» other two dates, 1.e. 22 d. 24, the card was used In Amarillo within one mile from Claimant's address. H k was In his shirt or jacket pocket wadded up behind the seat of the truck while k was at the repair yard at Pampa, then how could it be used in Amarillo by anyone? -TM only logical answer is that it was not stuffed in the jacket pocket wadded up behind the seat in the truck, but that Claimant did have the credit card when contacted by the Load Wider.
Another fact of this matter is that each credit card is Issued for a specific vehicle, plus it cannot be used without Inputting an employee's work number. The work number used in each of the 14 cases of misuse is that of another Welder who Claimant had worked with briefly In the Summer of 2001. Somehow, Claimant obtained that number and ft was used to activate the credit card. The party whose work number was used denied ever being at the places where the card was used on the dates it was used fraudulently. ,
The Organization raised a procedural argument contending the Division Engineer signed the notice of the Investigation. testified at the investigation, and then issued the discipline; thus, Claimant vas not afforded a fair investigation.
The Board does believe such handling should be avoided, but Claimant was not treated unfairly as there was an independent review of the Investigation by the Labor Relations Department and they did concur with the Division Engineer's decision. This
h oard -also-concurrwilh-the=decksbn-a- fed and even aThis Board, after consideration of the dispute Identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the CIaYnanqs) not be made.