On March 26, 2008, the Carrier advised Claimant he was being dismissed far, "falsifying records on track inspections and forging FRA documents on Sunday, January 2t', 2008."
Claimant was appointed to a Track Supervisor's position, His responsibility was to Inspect track within a specified territory. By Agreement, Track Supervisor's do not have assigned workdays nor assigned hour. They must, therefore, be self-starters who work without supervision in inspecting the track assigned to them.
The Carrier trusts the Track Supervisors to go about their duties. 'the paperwork relating to what was inspected and whether the Inspection was by high-rail or by walking the track is for the FRA.
Claimant was assigned to start arid end his day at the Bolan, New Mexico depot and that was where Claimant left his high-rail truck. Another Track Supervisor also started and ended his day at the same Belen Depot. At 2020 hours on January 27, 20118, that Supervisor faxed to the Roadmaster in charge the following:
arrived back to the depo (sic), and stiff notice the Socorro track sup truck was still park in the parking lot. 1 did not stay long at balm and proceeded to go back to the field, after a short wait l got track and time and made a hyrkii inspection from beavers to el pas* jct At about 1300 hrs l arrived to belen depo (sic) to take care paper work, and still notice that the Socorro track sup truck had not been moved, so t decided to call the el pas* rood master to let him know what was going on. Twenty minutes later l saw track supervisor whatiey drive in the parking lot on his personal vehicle and proceeded to go to whom the co truck was park, and he got it staled, he move the to truck from where it was park over to the lance by this Harvey house, when he came inside the depot. i ask him `running a little late' replied no that he was just coming to from making hire hyrail run, i ask him `so how was it', he sail it was quiet out there. t called the Roadmaster a second time to kA him know what whatiey had told me, and that was all, this statement is true and written to the best of my knowledge, thank you." With the aforequoted email, the Roadmaster in charge called Claimant to find out the particulars. Claimant told him hoe high-called his territory and the TRA form was so marked.
The Roadmaster called the Dispatcher's office just to chock Cialmant's story as it would be necessary that he have a track warrant to protect himself. There was no record of arty Dispatcher on January 27, 2008, issuing Claimant a track warrant. When confronted with that fact, he then said he used his own vehicle; but the Roadmaster knew that there was no way he could inspect the 108 mile territory as there was no parallel road in much of the area.. Claimant then told the Roadmaster that he hail misplaced the truck key but had been too embarrassed to tell anyone. He only inspected two sidings using his own vehicle.
As the questions kept coming, Claimant came up with excuse after excuse as to what work he supposedly did on January 27, 2008.
When asked why he did not correctly fill out the FRA report, his response was that he was told to fill It out the way he did, Indicating he inspected by high-rail, then he
Wage PLB NO. 5850finally stated he performed a walking inspection of two sidings using his own truck to reach the sidings.
In fact, when reviewing the transcript, aria Board found that whatever his excuse was, when it was shown to him that It could not have been done, he had another version of what transpired.
If he used his own vehicle In company business, no expense for miles driven was filed by Claimant.
It Is to bye noted that the charge letter contained an alleged falsification of time riot worked, but the dismissal letter had not listed the falalflcatlon for filing for pay when no work was performed had been dropped, but the remaining charges had beers sustained.
The charges for which Claimant was mated are serious infractions of the