(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
P RTI .S TO DISPUTE
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
I. That the Carrier's decision to remove Eastern Region, Section Foremen Mario
C. Lopez froth service was unjust.
2. That the Carrier now reinstate Claimant Lopez with seniority, vacation, all
benefit rights unimpaired and pay for all wage loss as a result of Investigation
held 10:30 a.m., April 29, 1997 continuing forward and/or otherwise made
whole, because the Carrier did not introduce substantial, credible evidence
that proved that the Claimant violated the rules enumerated in their decision,
and even if Claimant violated the rules enumerated in the decision, removal
from service is extreme and harsh discipline under the circumstances.
3. That the Carrier violated the Agreement particularly but not limited to Rule
13 and Appendix 11 because the Carrier did not introduce substantial, credible
evidence that proved the Claimant violated the rules enumerated in their
decision.
FINDINGS
Upon the whole record and all the eAdence, 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.
Claimant was cited for dishonesty and falsification of payroll, and following an Investigation
was dismissed froth Carrier's senice
The circumstances leading to the Investigation are that Claimant and three others car pooled
and on their way to work on .1-larch 31. 1997, the car engine blew- up, leafing the four stranded until
an alternative means of transportation was found. .As a result, Claimant and the other three car-
p~ ~~- s85o
Page 2 - - Award No. H2
Case No. 4'
poolers were one hour late to work on March 31, 1997
Claimant, who inputs his own time as well as the time worked by his gang, claimed a full eight
hour workday, whereas the other three claimed only the seven hours actually worked. For this act,
the Carrier issued the charge letter and then dismissed Claimant.
The falsification of payroll is a serious charge leading to long supervision or outright
dismsmt. Usuallv the falsification is repetitious and involves much mere than one hour on one day.
To this Board, it appears that Claimant was simply careless with the input of his time in this
one instance. The Carrier did not establish any other days or dates or instances of falsification, only
this one incident. Even Carrier's witness admitted that Claimant's act of claiming a full eight hours
when he worked only seven could readily have been an honest mistake.
Under the circumstances, Claimant's action on March 31 was much less severe than the
charges would indicate. Claimant's Supervisor knew about the over claim on April 4, but did not
advise Claimant of his knowledge until April 9, nor was Claimant given an opportunity to correct the
payroll as was done in another case.
The Board does find Claimant did claim the one hour overtime on March 31 when he worked
only seven hours, but it can find no evidence of Claimant's intent to defraud the Carrier for his own
gratification. He was, however, careless in reporting his time
Under the circumstances, Claimant is reinstated to service with all his seniority intact, but
without pay for time lost.
AWARD
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings
A16.vD.SSs~
Page 3 Award No.
yZ
Case No. 43
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above. hereby orders that an award
favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the award effective on or
before 30 days following the date the award is adopted
o _
Robert L. Hicks, Chairman & Neutral Member
C. F Foose, Labor Member Greg Griffin, arrier lvtember
Dated
J c,ne 9, M 7