The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by agreement of the parties; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing.
This matter presented procedural as well as substantive issues. Claimant was originally notified by letter dated Jane 18, 2000 to attend an investigation into the allegation that he falsified his time records for the last half of December 1999 in violation of Rule 1.6. Per Carrier's UPGRADE policy, violations of the Dishonesty section of the rule warrant the Level 5 disciplinary penalty of dismissal. At the time the allegation arose, Claimant had not quite three and one-half years of service with the Carrier.
1 he originally scheduled investigation was p^vipoacd at Claimant's request. T-Stim-on __According to the record, Claimant had a telephone conversation with his Assistant General Chairman on March 15`" whereby he requested another postponement because he had a physical examination scheduled for March 222 The record provided no details to explain the reason for the exam.
Claimant did not attend the investigation on March 222 His representative, who was present, provided a March 16, 2000 letter to document the request for a her postponement. No explanation for the physical examination was contained in the letter.
The Board's review of the investigation transcript and the appeal record developed on the property reveals no procedural improprieties by the hearing officer. No physical incapacity or other medical necessity has been demonstrated in the record to establish why the physical examination could not have been rescheduled to allow Claimant to confront the rather serious allegation of misconduct lodged against him. On this record, the Board is compelled to conclude that Claimant chose not to attend the rescheduled investigation at his peril.
The Board also finds the investigation transcript to contain substantial evidence in support of the charge against Claimant. It shows that Claimant did claim overtime pay after wing with his supervisor to trade _411 overtime for the latter half of December 1999 for time off with straight time pay to attend to family business. Claimant also claimed holiday pay for which he was not entitled due to the time taken off. The record also shows Claimant had the opportunity to correct his time claim before Jane 5, 2000 but he did not do so.
Claimant and the Organization produced purportedly exculpatory information during the appeal process on the property. Claimant was the foreman for Gang 9017. According to the investigation transcript, he had no proper authority to perform timekeeping duties for Gang 9002 and claim overtime for it. Moreover, even if the signed statements provided by other employees, which were produced during the appeal process and not during the investigation (although several pre-date the investigation), were proper considerations, they do not alter the fact that substantial evidence supports Claimant's guilt. The testimony of Claimant's immediate supervisor, given at the investigation, constituted substantial evidence in support of the charge.