(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Burlington Northern Santa FS Railroad (Former (ATSF Railway Company) STATEMENT OF, CLAIM:




2. As a consequence of the violation referred to In parts 1, the Carrier
 shall Immediately return the Claimant to service with seniority,
 vacation and all other rights restored, remove any mention of this
 incident from his personal record, and make him whole for all time lost
 account of this incident
 IF NDINGS

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.

May 6, 2005. vas a tumultuous day for Claimant He became involved In a dispute Involving his mother, his ex-wfs and her boyfriend.

The details of that encounter, the outcome and why so much detail concerning a family matter has become a matter of public record can be found in Award 356 of Public Law Board 4244. The details of that incident will not, therefore, be repeated heroin.



Page 2 PC -a P0. 5-8 5-0 Award No.

request for per diem when Claimant left the work site at 10:00 AM on May 6, 2006, for which he was paid. When Caller discovered he had ciaknad a full day's pay and per diem for May 8, they wrote Claimant establishing an Investigation to:

      "...develop the facts and place responsibility, If any, in connection with possible violation of Rule 1.6, of Maintenance of Way Operating Rules, In effect October 31, 2004, as supplemented or amended, concerning s report received June 17, 2008 concerning your alleged dishonesty when claiming 8 hours regular tires pay and lunch par diem on May 6, 2008, while incarcerated while assigned as Lead Welder, Dallas, New Mexico."

The Inveatigation was mutually postponed and was finally held on August 11, 2006. On August 25, 2006, the Caller wrote Claimant advising that he was dismissed from service.

In reviewing the transcript, Claimant admitted he claimed the ft" he is now accused of fraudulently claiming and receiving pay and expenses for time he did not work on May 6. Following is an excerpt from the Investigation:


    "81. Q. Mr. Reel, what ware your duties to be brat day?

    A. To weld on a frog at Islets on the Giorieta Sub.

    82. Q. Did you do that?

    A. No, 1 got arrested and I called from jail, had a piss test In jail,

    and when 1 got out i went back to the office to sea if he :11111

    wanted me to go work on that frog and he sold no go home.

    And had Gary Gomez watch me clean out my truck. And that

    was It, gone.

    83. Q. Mr. Real, whose responsibility for Inputdng your time?

    A. Me and my partner.

    84. Q. And your partner being who?

    A. He was Rivas that day.

    86. Q. Has Mr. Rivas ever inputted time for you before?

    A. 1 showed wan how, taught him, yes.

    88. Q. Mr. Reel, did you Input your tine for allay 6, 2005?

    A. Yes, in the morning before anything happened. I didn't get a

Page 3 PL B N6. SgSI~ Award No.
 Case No. 288
 chance to go back and delete anything because 1 was told to
 leave by Sfopgett

      87. Q. Mr. Rael, when did you return back to the property to start

      work again?

      A. The following Friday. This happened on Friday, May 6, and I

      cans back the following Friday, a week later, i didn't get paid

      for any of those days.

      88. Q. Mr. Reel, you did pay yourself for eight hours for May 6 and

      for meal alkrwance?

      A. Yes, In the morning before anything happened It did, yeah."

Further questioning of Claimant reveals that although h® forgot about claiming the May 6 full pay and a per diem or lunch allowance, he first argued that he was suspended from service immediately by the Division Engineer thus he had no access to the computer to change fire tine he had clakned on the morning of May 6. When questioned further, he admitted he was reinstated on the 13th and could have then adjusted the payroll claiming time only until 10:00 AM, but he contends he forgot about changing the tens.

Maybe, just maybe, Claimant did forget He could not adjust the payroll after the pay period closed, but he could have called the Payroll Departrnent or his Supervisor to find out how he could readjust the hours he actually worked on May 6, 2005. Barring all the missed opportunities to correct his payroll, when he received pay for days worked for the first half of May, he must have noticed he was paid for more limo than he actually

                                      i

worked. If he did not, he must be one of the rare employees who never knew how much the next check was for.
 The Board has empathy with Claimant's disturbing, highly-ortwtional family situation, but by months end or whenever the pay check arrived covering services rendered in the first half of May, he should have recognded he was overpaid. He could
 Page 4 PL 9 ND. Sg $'0 Award No.
                                              Case No. 269


have then contacted the right people to readjust his payroll reflecting only the hours worked during May 6, 2006, but he did not.
 Claiming money for time worked when an indMdual did not work Is fraud and is a very serious offense. Dismissal is not out of line. The Board does support the Carrier's decision to dismiss.

                        AWARD


      Claim denied.


                        ORDER

This Board, after consideration of the dispute Identified above, hereby orders that an avmrd favorable to the Claknanqs) not be nude.

              9~

              Robert L. Hicks, Chairman d, Neutral iembsr


~h
 David D. Tanner, Labor Member Samantha Rogers, Ca r miser

 Dated: /()11 SI 0(r