PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6302
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES )
Case No. 138
and )
Award No. 123
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY )
Martin H. Malin, Chairman & Neutral Member
T. W. Kreke, Employee Member
D. A. Ring, Carrier Member
Hearing Date: February 7, 2008
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) The discipline assessment of dismissal for a violation or Rule 1.6 in connection
with Claimant Kevin G. Mort's failure to comply with the Visa Credit Card Policy
including an audit which found the improper usage of the card and subsequent
failure to provide the required documentation to support purchases is not
acceptable.
(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, the Organization
requested that the discipline be reversed and Mr. Mort be reinstated with seniority
unimpaired. The Organization further requested that Mr. Mort be made whole as
if there had been no discipline issued and no suspension from service and that his
record be expunged of any mention of this matter. It was requested that the
Claimant be paid for all hours that he would have worked, including overtime and
he be compensated for his time not paid on the day of the hearing on September 8,
2006. The Organization alleged a violation of Rule 48 of the Agreement.
FINDINGS:
Public Law Board No. 6302 upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and
holds that Employee and Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act, as amended; and, that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and, that the
parties to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon and did participate therein.
On August 23, 2006, Claimant was directed to report for an investigation on September 8,
2006, concerning an audit and review of his 2002 BTE expenses and alleged improper usage of
`PL 8
t0:3® A
iqward I a3
his BTE card and failure to provide required documentation to support his purchases, in violation
of Rule 1.6. The hearing was held as scheduled. On September 22, 2006, Claimant was advised
that he had been found guilty of the charge and dismissed from service.
The record reflects Claimant had two Carrier credit cards. A Business Travel and
Expense (BTE) card was to be used for lodging and meal expenses. The bill came directly to
Carrier but Claimant received a monthly statement and was to account to Carrier with receipts
supporting the purchases made on the card. A corporate credit card was to be used to businessrelated purchases. The monthly bill came to Claimant and he was to submit for reimbursement
of expenses incurred. Purchases of less than $10.00 did not require receipts.
There is no dispute that, beginning August 14, 2002, Claimant used the BTE card to
charge numerous personal expenses, including purchases made when he was not traveling on
Carrier business. The critical issue is whether Carrier proved, by substantial evidence,
Claimant's dishonest intent.'
Claimant testified that he was never instructed on and was therefore unsure of the proper
use of the BTE card. As an appellate body that does not observe the witnesses testify, we are in a
comparatively poor position to evaluate witness credibility. Accordingly, we defer to the
credibility determinations made on the property as long as they are reasonable.
In the instant case, the determination made on the property not to credit Claimant's
testimony was eminently reasonable. Of particular significance is evidence that when traveling
on Carrier business, Claimant charged numerous meals to his BTE card and also submitted
expense reimbursement requests for the same meals. Claimant testified that he understood he
had to report his charges on the BTE card and believed that his expense reimbursement requests
were the proper means to make those reports. However, the amounts for which reimbursements
were requested varied considerably from the amounts charged on the BTE card. Furthermore,
the differences cannot be explained, as Claimant tried to do, as after-the-fact estimates of the
charges. Rather than reflect estimates, the amounts for which reimbursements were claimed
were precise to the penny. Moreover, all were in amounts under $10.00, i.e., amounts that did
not require receipts. Rather than reflect confusion on proper use of the BTE card, the double
billing for meals while traveling on Carrier business suggests a calculated effort to defraud
Carrier numerous times in relatively small amounts each time by keeping the requests tinder
$10.00 each and thereby avoiding the need to account for them with receipts. The Agreement
does not require Carrier to retain such a thief in its employ.
'The Organization also argues that the charges were not timely but it is clear that under Rule 48, the time
limits on filing charges run from the date a Carrier official with disciplinary authority over the employee first
becomes aware of the offense. In the instant case, awareness of the offense did not occur until after the audit, even
though that occurred several years after the offenses themselves.
'PL 8
lo30 :i
p,nd 1413
AWARD
Claim denied.
Martin H. Malin, Chairman
D. A. Ring TIU. ICreke, Em~oyee Member
Carrier Member Employee Member
ated at Chicago, Illinois, May 31, 2008