t. The Carrier violated the Apreenwnt when on September 8, 2000, Mr. Daniel !.. 8 :kas dlamla*,ad from aerrice tcrr allegedly vtoladng txatety Rules t.15 and 1.6 In tonrnecdon with his allegedly leaving work early on August 22, 2000, and his allegedly paying himself for the entire shift on that day.

2. As a consequence of tile Carrier's violation referred to ire part (t) above, fir. Wit shall be reinstated with seniority, vacatlw, alt other dghta unlmpalmd, the discipline shall be rwmved from his personal record, and he shall be compensated for all wages lost !n accordance with tho Agreement

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the 13crard f»ds that the parties herein are carrier and employee wwhhin the meaning of the Railway Labor Act; as amended. Further, the Board is duty constituted by Agreement, has jurtsdicn o!' the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due nodcs of

GIalrmnt left work at 9430 without authorization, but claimed time until 1800. For this be was dismissed from service on September 9, 2000. He requested an Investigation whenain It developed that the charges were on the madL Standing alone and considering Clalmant's seven years of service with one 20 day deterred assessed because of misuse

RECE

JUN 2 1 2001
PL i3 Nb .

vO .V

Case r1o. 21

of company property, the sustained charges have boon enough to uphold a discharge, but the citcurnsunces in this case do not lend itself to that conclusion.

A mntly, it hoe been a practice that when an individual totes time vft a legitimate reason and with authorization, sonwhow, soy, he js permitted to malts up the tune. In this instance, Claimant contended tae had a farriliy fancy and he hat! to leave work early but he had artared his payroll claiming a full eight hours earlier In the day before he became avare of the emergency. When he returned acrd had a subsequent conversation with his Supervisor later towards the end of August, he nude no effort to correct the hours worked on August 22, 2000, frown eight to six and one-half.

This Hoard is of the opinion that had Claimant sought authorization before he left than job or the next day or so after ire retumed and 4 eras granted, Le., exchanging thne lost by working in excess of eight, we would not have thhl dispute to consider.

This predicament, this dispute Is an example of what can gcr wrong. individual employees begin to accept the Idea that they can make their own assignments unto someone, as here, does things on his own, is discovered and mnarzt berlleves ?t necessary to discipline someone a= art example to others. A more positive Bray to stop this abuse, Is to eliminate the practice and abide with the Rules.

Claimant is to bra reinstated to service with all his seniority rights intact, but without pay for time toot.

AWARD

Claim sustained In accordance with the Findings. ROER

This Boats, after consideration err the dispute IdentMed above, hereby orders that

' 4 Wo~.1

3 Cos* No. 21

an awsrd Nvorable to the Clalman4s) be made. The Carrler Is ordered to mako the Award efecthre can or before 30 days falloing the date tire Award is adopt#d,

Robert L* Hicks,, Chairman & Neutral Mkmber

Public Law Board 6103

lasted: ~,,,~,r,, , j _- 00 1