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.
On December 22, 2005, the Carrier wrote Claimant that an Investigation Hearing was being convened:
On February 1, 2006, Carrier wrote Claimant advising him he was dismissed from Carrier's service.
A review of the transcript finds Carriers dismissal of Claimant for submitting fraudulent time, time he was not entitled to, has been clearly established by Claimant admitting claiming four hours at the overtime rate that he did not work.
Not only did he admit the false payroll for four hours at the overtime rate, he also wrote a statement indicating he requested pay for time not worked. His response as to why he replied - he was confused.
This Board realises that Claimant at the date of the Investigation was a veteran of 31 years; however, even a lily-white discipline record (which is not the case here) Is not a mitigating factor. Payroll falsification, I.e., claiming time not worked, is theft, pure and simple and an act of dishonesty.
With Claimant's oral and written testimony admitting the falsification of the payroll for October 20, 2005, the Carrier has furnished sufficient evidence of Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed. Dismissal is appropriate for theft.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made. p,6 00. s8sv Page 3