Claimant's infraction seems to be improperly prepared payrolls, overpaying members of his 58 man crew during the period set forth in the notice of the Investigation, some $70,000, but nothing has been established to show that Claimant did, in any way, profit individually. It was simply done in error or because of a misunderstanding, nor was any Supervisor reviewing the payrolls, particularly when the crew was relocating.
Claimant's representative at the outset of the Investigation raised a time limit issue, contending that the crew was working under the BN Schedule and the Disciplinary Rule, which reads as follows:
"An employees (sixty days) in service sixty (60) days or more will not be disciplined or dismissed until after a fair and impartial Investigation has been held. Such Investigation shall be set promptly to be hold not later than fifteen (15) days from the date of the occurrence, except that personal conduct cases will be subject to the frneen (15) day limit from the date information is obtained by an officer of the Company (excluding (officers) of the Security Department) except as provided in Section B of this rule ...." was not followed.
Sometime in September of 2002, the Carrier witness was instructed to conduct an audit of Claimant's payroll for the gang for a year. Carrier's witness did not get started
La No 5-8nThe apparent error or errors committed were over-paying the crew when it was moved from one location to the next, or paying someone on the crew for working overtime or a travel allowance when the individual was off with an excused absence. Claimant did not, evidently, claim straight time hours for the absent employee but did pay the overtime or the travel allowance.
It also developed that Claimant allowed others to use his password in accessing the payrolls or to input time. This is also contrary to instructions.
This Goard finds that the time limit issue raised by Claimant's representative is valid and Rule 40J stipulates what is to occur if the time limits are not adhered to; La., "the charges against the employee shall be considered as having been dismissed."
Claimant's representative raised this issue when he found that the Carrier witness first commenced the audit in October, he immediately became aware of some of the discrepancies and should have set the Investigation then, rather than waiting to complete the entire audit
The Time Limn Rule requires a notice of an investigation to be held within 15 days from the date of occurrence, except in personal conduct cases, within 15 days from the date the information is obtained by a Carrier Official.
This Board will not rule on whether this was a personal conduct case that tolls the fifteen days to commence when knowledge is first obtained by an Officer of the Carrier or whether it is an occurrence. In either scenario, the Investigation was not timely held.
Claimant's Foreman's date is reinstated and he Is to be paid for any tine lost because of the discipline assessed as provided for in the Agreement.
Page 4