The Investigation was hell as scheduled and the Carrier in the belief it had furnished sufficient evidence of Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed, advised Claimant on August 6, 2004, that he eras dismissed from Carrier's service.
The Investigation into those purchases occurred because Claimant and a clerk got into an argument concerning Cia'unanYs request to alter the bill to show he purchased grease and a pair of slipaolnt pliers in lieu of listing two jumper cables.
The clerk, either bothered by the exchange of words or really thinking something else was amiss, copied the license plate number and the company truck number that Claimant was driving, then the clerk called the Carrier headquarters relaying what had transpired,
A Carrier Security Officer was assigned to investigate and want to the store, interviewed two clerks who then furnished three other Instances of Claimant making the purchases wherein he had the clerk who waited on him on June 4, 2004, change the billing to reflect purchases other than what had actually been purchased.
On May 4, 2004, Clahnanrs handwritten bill reflected he purchased four gear lube when in fact he purchased four hand tools. On October 27. 2003, he purchased one hand tool, but had the receipt read "bolts". On October 1, 2003, Claimant purchased three hand tools, but had the written receipt list a file, some anti4reeze and a rust inhibitor.
When the Carrier security person questioned Claimant about the purchases of June 4, 2004, Claimant opened his tool box and showed him the two jumper cables in their original packages and the slip joint pliers.
Pe $ Award No.All purchases with the company credit card have to be reported to the Supervisor. Several days after the June 4, 2004, Incident, Claimant advised the Supervisor via email that the purchase was for, "oil, gear lube and pliers."
When asked why the Invoice reflected two jumper cables and pliers when his email listed o11 and gear lube but no jumper cables, Claimant replied the only reason he could think of that he may have listed in a previous email and that he apparently copied the older report without thinking.
At this juncture, the record does raise questions as to what was the reason Claimant sought handwritten receipts that did not reveal the true purchases in each Instance. Did he list items erroneously believing, as he told the clerk, that it was for budget reasons or were the purchases for his own private use? Were the smalls simply copied from previous reports because he was inept or lazy at typing In the actual purchases?
To dismiss an employee with 34 years of service with only one prior Incident on his record, the evidence has to be incontrovertible. The June 4, 2004, incident developed only that he did furnish an email to his Supervisor tint didn't coincide with the actual purchase, but Claanant did have in his company tool box the two jumper cables he did not list on his email to vef the June 4, 2004 purchase.
The earlier incidents concerning actual purchases and conflicting handwritten receipts, shows only that Claimant was rather haphazard in reporting what he had actually purchased.
Claimant's Supervisor stated what Claimant actually purchased in each incident were tools that he needed to keep his tool box current In other words, the Supervisor
Page 4 Award No.readily agreed that the tools, etc., that Ctatmant purchased would be tools he would be expected to purchase.
This Board is not convinced, or at least can find no evidence, that what Claimant purchased were items for his personal use, but this Board readily believes that ClaknanYs out of service time rest solely on his shoulders for not being candid for what he did purchase. Is there suspicion that Claimant's use of the company credit was fraudulent? The answer is yes; but is there proof of such fraudulent use, no.
Claimant is to be reinstated to service with all his seniority rights intact, but due to his false reporting intentionally or otherwise that has lead to this Incident, there will be no pay for time lost
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the award effective on or before 30 days following the ate the award is adopted.