Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
A Carrier employee reported what he believed to be a vehicle in an area that had suffered some vandalism and he thought that it might have been abandoned. We contacted a member of Carrier's police who investigated and found the doors unlocked, keys in the ignition. The Patrolman called the Roadmaster and together they reviewed the car's contents. The Roadmaster testified as follows:
Further examination turned up Claimant's checkbook, but the car registration was not in Claimant's name although testimony was to the fact that Claimant was in the process of buying the car,
When Claimant was questioned about the beer In the car, he at first denied it eras his, but after further questioning he admitted it was his (although at the Investigation his brother, who owned the car, testified it was his beer, not Clahnant's; that he bought it the day before).
Claimant testified that he picked up the car around 2100 the day before and drove it to work the next morning leaving home around 0400.
Claimant was tasted for banned substances and was cleared. He had not consumed any alcohol before reporting for work or while working, but the alibi set forth by Claimant and his brother at the Investigation is not credible.
The beer (2 cans) was found in the front passenger seat. The ice chest was on the floor on the passenger side and a trash bag on the floor on the driver's side that contained one eMp beer carton.
It is not understood how such debris on the passenger side of the front seat and the trash bag on the driver's side on the floor could be overlooked.
Claimant has been with the Carrier 32 years. He surely know that alcoholic beverages, whether consumed or even carried onto the property, was a violation of the Rules. If the beer was not his, but his brother's, he should have disposed of same before leaving the car on Carrier's property.