Award No.
Case No. 45
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PA TIBS TO DISPUTE:
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Carrier's decision to remove Western Trackman J. C. Nez from
service was unjust.
2. That the Carrier now reinstate Claimant Nez with seniority, vacation, all
benefit rights unimpaired and pay for all wage loss as a result of Investigation
held 1:00 p.m., September 17, 1996 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 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.
Claimant was employed as a Welder by the Carrier. In this capacity, Claimant was assigned
a company vehicle, and with the vehicle came a credit card to be used by whoever drove the truck,
mainly for the purpose of purchasing fuel for that truck.
On September 4, 1996, at 0602 Claimant used the company credit card not for a company
vehicle but, as noted by the sales clerk, to refuel a red, extended cab truck.
The clerk asked her supervisor if Cancer had any red trucks, and the next day the supervisor
queried someone from the Carrier about the red truck. This inquiry led the Carrier to serve the
following notice upon the Claimant:
0
f'c-.3 aJ-.5~'SD
Page 2 Award No.
`7°~
Case No. 45
"...You are hereby notified to attend formal investigation in the General
Roadmaster's office ...at 1:00 P.M., M.D.S.T., Tuesday, September 17, 1996, to
develop all facts and place responsibility, if any, in connection with your alleged
unauthorized use of a Company Credit Card for your personal vehicle on
Wednesday, September
4, 1996, in possible violation of Rules 1.19 and 1.25 of
Safety Rules and General Responsibilities for All Employees, effective January 31,
1996_ -
You may arrange for representation in line with the provisions of Agreement
or Schedule governing your working conditions, and you may, likewise, arrange for
the attendance of any desired witnesses.'
At the Investigation, Claimant readily admitted he used the company credit card to purchase
gasoline for his personal vehicle (a red truck with an extended cab) and stated he did so because
he was short money. Claimant had been car pooling to attend some function and he had to drive.
Claimant also admitted he had no authority to use the card as he did.
Claimant's culpability, for the charges was clearly established. What he did was in clear
violation of the Rules and did subject Claimant to discipline.
In this case, the Claimant was charged with a serious offense amounting to theft or
dishonesty which Is a matter of serious concern and that dismissal from service, even on the first
offense, Is not an excessive application of discipline nor an abuse of discretion.
This Board sees no reason to set aside the discipline.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award
favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
obert L. Hicks, Chairman & Neutral Member
l/ ~~
K
eat!!-C-~
'~>Z ,
. Foos , Labor Member Thomas M. Rohling, Carrier ber
Dated:
x