Nit Kl)canncll testified at the OcOwtion that can snrcnt) occasicms since cad, u'f>0c), (1ainrant llml \"rrked a relief poskiaAn which she "as ctaitled to he paid traW time, code (J'. and rrltlcarre, pay code 0t)_ to "et to the r-clicf location, travel time anti mileage to get to another relief assrtgnmem. or travel mile acrd rtuleattc to a rct:ular assignment. 1 lc stated th;tt on marts, ~occasions she had also Imt irr for tm% cl time and unlCttee to her home dill-11111 tile course of a rc~fief ~r~;~:i_t~mcrtlt\hich is nut allo~c°d under ('airier rules.

Mr. (YI)onnc1I testified that he had sp<}ken to (lainrant conccnting the situation at least twice and maybe rm}re. explaining that site could not claim these a\pertses ill this manner. Specifically that tlica- were not alloNWle to go hang during tlw course of a relief assittnmcra. Ile stated that she. told him S11C trnderstcod. NT (>`Donnell added that in tile ()t) dais prior to the hearing. he explainml to her that the maucr had tvcn `acing on for far tots ions lie added that when employees receive inappropriate payments, tile C'arricr sets tip a recollection meth«d t« recoup tile payments. for a maximum c}f ~?C)0 per paycheck.

?,1r. U'Donricll tutificd at the in\cstiaation that as of that date she still owed the (Arr-Or S1144>4. and :;ht: had a declined claim as line as December l :, ?011. Mr. t )'Donnell stated that lie did not know it there had been continued issues after that point because he had not N ct audited tile second half of Deeerllhcr.

I leather AshIcy. Manager of %Umenarfce of Wa5 I ituckc(ping ( irr>trp. testified that she began aware ol'thc situation in April 2010, learning that there was an cxcrrhitxmt eurrotrtn of nurn ey that needed tci he recouped Wan an emphnce b>r imprtrped, claimintimc . Sic stated that tile artlOunt due was 54000 and it continued to he alt onr<coitq3 I-,rrohletn with the employee, and she rn.Itrcraed the assistance of her Field Nlanagcrs. Utrn Sorenson and !laic hrhrlsma. tea scntighten curt the IWohfc°rn. She added that she rec:cived an eanctil from Mr. Sorenson o17 April 'r7. 2010 5t<ning that he c"ndd talk to (`laimant ahottt imprupedy claiminiz tune, and a follcxW-up e-mail stating that lice had done sty. N1s. Ashley ;toted that she learned from Mr. (>`l~c~nrt ll ire I )cccmhir '11l l fiat tile problem had I-CSIArlaced.

Air. hyler testified that Tmekccpintg of ficials (dire=a E)`Donnell and .lack I eaford contacted hint concerning expense charges inwWng Claimant. I bet provided bin 1 a spreadsheet. which was entered into evidence at the. investigation. It ycovertd a period Rctm January 6. 20()9 to Tvio',emher 29, 2010. I'he document shuWs pay codes (It Sill l0wed and taken hack Or coach pay period dating hack to January 6. 2009, Nit I homas stated that it showed pay codes ('laimant was not entitled lo. and she "as spoken t« ah<mt tile Smrlteerorr multiple occasions.

Claimant testified Lit the investigation that from ":m ertthcr 12. 2010 she was t%orking :t relief podtion as a truck drier Or a 3()-day assa~,nnneut. She stated th~rt dte lid tint wheie stn any other positions. just as a tntck driNcr in the mune location. Site explained that pal cwfe c0) is for tttileagte. ,in(] ()? is traeel hours.

claitnant stated that on a relief poMttt an ctnploicc is entitled to the t;~o pay codes when she reports 41 the: lWtion ;and "hell she actually Wvv; the postion When asked Acther why "as entitled to LRSC par a tents Ar cvcry trip -,he tnakeh ltc>ntc. .ltc replied that at the time she hclieved that was "hat she i\-;js ctvitiecl to). She ackno\\lcd~cd that site clahmed theses two pay codes on No%crnhcr 1 ~. Novcrnhcr 1 1). Nlol cuthcr '2. %nember 21 and Notembwr 29. 2M0. She asserted that site lutd been hottest it) claiming these payments. She ackrtnioJedged that Nir. (Monnell had told her in the past that she was not ctttitled to payments and they \%ould be taken lack throuvah halrcill deductions. When asked A the ffearinri Officer it lie ftad explained why that «a.; tile case. Claimant replied that she could not recall. With respect to Mr. fDartncll's tcstintony that Ile had explained "by ()? and 69 slain tw Mould he recouped. and that Claimant had acknowlcd;aed that she understood. Claimant also replied that she could not recall if Mr. C)' Donnell had made that smtcutettt. She contended that the only thin she was told by supervisors was that the claims would he removed iron n her pal=checks. She ;dso acknowledged that ,Mr. Sorenson had spoken to her. `she ackuc7\\ledged that she u-as still nuking reinyments liar inappropriate ()? and (>9 claims.

Claimant testified that she reviews her pa)c heck stints, but she k-is only aware fit ahout 5700 coating out oh her paycheck. She stated that she had noticed disalkiwtneuts coning out <tt her check. but had never questioned tile deductions With art~one in f irnckeepin~. She acknow1cdt;ed that ]'or apprrrxitnatcll tv,,> sears she lead hrcn disallo"ed S2'()() leer check. but contended she only spoke 'to fir. O'Donnell once and never asked "ht the mortet "as continr; slut. She: contcrtded that ,he did not knoxv tilt current annount she owed the Carrier, She stated that Nfr. ()'Donnell had spoken to her ..m,metin-tc: in December" but she did not identilv the year.

Clairtiant contended that when she entered the codes at issue she htlic\cd she \~as cutidcd to the payments. and could not recall that ally ~upcrvisor had ever irtstrttctc:d leer than that "its no" the case. She stated that after she corttactcd her t'niun representatives they explained L%hy she was not entitled to Codes 0? and 61 but "did not recall- that any supervisor had ever exphtined the proper procedure tit her.

Claimant also stated that Nfr. Sorenson had told her she needed to rctnovc tile clrtitrts, but she (lid nctt recall if he explained why that was the case. She maintained that she did not recall if he gave her any clarilication. httt ,he net.ertheless rctnovcd tithe to whWh she had believed she eras entitled. She stated that this conversation lrtd taken place "a L\hilc h=eck." but she could not recall the date. sornetintc "Ain the \ear hch,re the: investigation most likely. She stated that she did not change die codes herself'. but Citttckeeping rrntoved the payments. Claimant acknowledged that the Carrier began toy take SIX) oto of leer paychecks bconning ire January NAW but <he ;fever tried to call the

P! 11 5R50, Use NO. 411 loge 4 of 7

( Tnion for anN explanation at that tirrie, and never clarified tile platter until she ,pokc t~> the t'nion in I)ccernher '010. `she claimed that she never tried to
out tire trtono ~c;s ccrnlint cut ctntil Deccrnhcr 1010.

Claitrant testified that she had never heen toy im ckt.,ses err rccciccd :rrr~ Instruction «n ho%L to properly tltilire these pay codes. '~hc -.fated that <he could not recall Mlether the matter uvas covered in in\, Carrier rule;.

Claitnant's discipline record shoes a Level ` 5C)-day rccurd :stlspetrsiori, mill a 1 -'-month rec iccv period. issued January ?S. _'t)1 t? tOr f;rilure to ohtain proper atalloritv prior to occupyinu main track.

With respect to the procedural issues raised by the C>r;ganizaticrn. the Carricr states that tile investi'-nation leas in fact held in accordance: w=ith the tithe limit provision of the p;trticsA;.treement. A~hile, the Carrier states, the Or-anization contends that tile Carrier is in violation of Rule. I 1(a) and held the investigation hecond the required W days, the Carrier notes that tile Rule: provides that the investigation "plus( he promptly lleld° and C'arrier's first knouledvc of the events «as December 11, ?(>10. hheref6re. the Carricr contends, the investigation was scheduled -vvitllin 30 days. on Decenlher 2t), ?1)10. tired !his art2utllcnt has tic) nlcrit.

hurthcr, tile Carrier states. the C)rganiration's argument that the Investif!ati<ltl Notice teas not ~ufticientIv precise: also fails. The notice, the C'arricr states, \\as eluitcy clear, as it asserted that the relevant events occurred while Claimant worked as a Nwclder On TRWXl547. She only held that assit~ntnetit from December 14-110. ?010. the Carricr points out. and the Notice therefore provided Claimant and the. Organization enough iufortnation to prepare their defense. fllcre is also no merit. tile Carrier states. tee tile (>r2atlization's Contention that the fact that two l~itncsses tetiticd by telephone ryas ;j procedural (laic. and numcrotts awards have held to tile contraiy.

On the tncrits, tile Carrier contends. the evidence dioxvs that Claimant held hcen
told oil several occasions and by several different supervisors that she v~as putting travel
tithe anti rnilcagc into the timekeeping svstetn whcrr she was not entitled to it. Indeed, the
Carrier states. Claimant admitted that these supervisors spoke to her re<gardin; - , these
errors. and. to the extent she also testified that she did not recall receiving all\,
instructions. the resolution of such conflicting tcstinlony is for the Hearing Officer. not
this Board. The Carricr urges that there is no doubt that Ciairnalit \ iolatcd Carrier rules
as alleged. With respect to the penalty. the Carrier asserts drat it v\as prcrpcriy assessed,
according to the Carrier's Policy for Ernplovee Performance Accountahility (PFPA) and
her personal record. For all of" these reasons. the Carrier urges that tile claim he denied,

('Ire Organization raises procedural and substantive challenges to the; discipline assessed against Claimant. First. the Organization states. tile Notice of Investiuation was deficient as it lacked a elate on which the alleged violation took place. Moreover, tile C)rarriiation states. according to Agttement Rule -f5. the Carrier hers 60 days from the d;rte of violaticln to} recoup arlv uvcrptlvtnent to err CrrrplovCc. F\.idence presented Juritl0

f't.f >tf), Case N(t. -4 t t

Page 5 of 7

the in\cstivatioti. the t)rganization asserts. concerned a%ents outside this iitncfratne rind Aould not ha"c been allowed into evidence. Further, the t?rttcttizatic~t~ arsptes, the Hearing Officer alloyed %vitnesses to testify by telephone, «ver the ()rganiratiOn~s (6jcCtion. llte On-anization contends that Claimant was denied a fair rind impartial itlvestis_iation.

t )n the merits. the Oruanization states that the Carrier has failed t« meet its burden Of prox inig Claitrtant's uudt~by substantial evidence. Hi e Organization notes that Mr. hltomas testified that ~lte and other supervisors had nuruerous conversations with C.'l;timant. but gas unable to provide any- written documentation «i these conversations c>r, any evidence that he \\corked with Claimant tee correct an\,, supposed problem. \Ir. I homas also, the Organization notes. acknowledf:ed that he did not kno-v,- the proper procedure for the Carrier to recoup overpayments to an employee. The Organization concedes that Claimant claimed :;one expenses to which she was not entitled, but asserts that her actions vvc.re inadvertent and she is nest guilty of any- intentional misconduct. the t tr(tanization notes that Clainnant is paying back erronec>tts pa\ tnents. and the charl!es cOuld have peen avoided had Carrier officers taken tile tune to help correct her misunderstandings. With respect to the penalty. the 0rgatnzation states that even if Claimant were ~tiiltc c)f the charges. the discipline is extreme. unwarranted and unjustified. The Organization urges that the claim be sustained.

\Ve have carefull\ reviewed the record in its entirety. Addressing' first the
procedural arguments, the OrganizaliOn argues that the entirety. Addressing' is
prOeedurally defective as it does not specify the datetsj ot' ClaimanCS alleged violation.
I-lie Carrier counters that it did provide Claimant and the Or(_,Fzniration with sufficient
notice. as it specified that the misconduct Occurred during her assi,antnent ors a welder on
tjang FRWX 1 `,47, and, the Cat-rier states. she occupied that assignment iroin December
I 4- 50. 2() I t).

We believe the Notice is reasonably specific enough to put Claimant oil notice that she should defend leer conduct in the period from December 1 4-it). ?() I f7 w=hich is the MAIN tittle she \%%orked its a welder on the Seligman subdivision. lfc}u-ever, that is not the tinic period that teas addressed in this investigation. IThe record demonstrates that the imestit)ation teas triggered by Mr. O'Donnell's review ofClaimant's expense claims and his cunclusicr1 that site had made numerous inappropriate claims during November, _'011. 11r. (lionias' decisimn to order air investigation te=as clearly based can that ittfitrmation. .1t the investigation. Claimant vas questioned only about her claims during that time period, while she was apparently on a truck driver rather than welder relief - assignment. rind she had n o reason or opportunity to defend against any allegations concerning her conduct in December. '011. Indeed. Mr. O'Donnell stated at the investigation that he had not yet audited late December. wend \,.as unaware of %ihethcr Claimant had comnnned attv further violations during that period.

l he Carrier's response to the claim clearly states that tltc: Notice addresses ClaimZInt's c01tduet during a %,\elder assi«ntnent in the latter pericld ~>f December 2'011. l he letter o! stv;pcnsion ;id%-ices her- that she is hein-g, disciplined fOr her conduct durini-I a

I'~_t3 `S~t). CSCNo. 411

I''1L'G 6 «d .·

\Wder assrfunnicrrt in the latter period of Accnnher 2(>1 1. I he Wevtigation unleernal lwr ctrrduct tin a tnrck drier assirmlnent in November 201 1, We csmclude that the Nwice «f Imc htiuanort in fact title(] to ;rrfficicntk idetititN the 4~11es~c:c1 violations crud

(Iairn;lnt N\aN not afforded a ~rrffieier~t opp«rtunit, to dcfcrid hersoIC.

( )it this basis alone, we sustain the chin and orcicr the disciphnc ancsscd against tlainiant ovcrtnrned and renlowcd front her perscnud record. ]-hat i5 not b) say that this record Am not demonstrate a) lengthy rcriod of clurstiortahle condnet by CTainzant. and u hen appears tcf he a grc:,3t deal «f patience and leniency ht the (lirrien Wa also do not ~r~{~!est that, it c LlirMIFIt s tOnrfrrct cOnttrzucs. the Carrier i; in :111, dal. precluded from addres,;intg it in a lormal manner npon proper notice.

AWARD

Claim sustained. The C.'arrier is nrdered to comply with this ANNar-d within 45 days.

Cat-rier Member

Dated this ~.~, day rat' < ' , ?(112.

13. N " :LSVN
'sutra! : ember

DAVID TANNER
Organization Member

I'lA3 5R`ti. (et,e \ir. -il

lope 7 cal