Public Law Board Rio. 704$, upon the whole record acrd all the evidence, finds and holds that 1-mplovee and Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor :pct as amended: and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein; anti that the parties to the dispute have participated in accordance to the Agreement that established the Board.
On August 2, 2()1 1. (."laixnant was directed to attend a fOrmal Investigation on August 8, ='0l 1. ,vhich was mutually postponed until August 8. 201 (. eoncerni;,.g in pertinent part the following charge:
()c1 September ?, ?tl1 1, Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty as charged 4ind wws disxt~issecl from service.
It is the Organization's position that the Claimant was denied a "fair and impartial" Investigation because he was removed from service prior to the I-fearing which indicated prejudgment. It further asserted that the Carrier procedurally erred when it allowed witnesses to testify via telephone and the charges were not precise. Additionally. it suggested that it %vas inherently unfair for the discipline to be issued by a Carrier Officer that was not in attendance of the Tearing because he did not have the ability to make credibility assessments of the evidence And testimony presented during the I -fearing. It argued that because of those technical violations the claim should be sustained without even reviewing the merits. I lowever, if` the merits are examined it argued that the Carrier did not meet its burden of proof as Claimant only made a payroll error that did not cause any lass of Carrier monies. It concluded by requesting that the discipline be rescinded and the claim sustained as presented.
It is the position of the Carrier there were no procedural errors that denied the Claimant his right to a "fair and impartial" Investigation. It argued the facts indicate that the Claimant paid himself for July 18 and 21, 2()I 1, for time not worked and for being absent without authorization can July I$, 2011, and for being tardy without authorization on July 2 1, 2()11. while attending the welding class at the Technical Training Center in Overland Park. Kansas. It further argued that the Claimant admitted his guilt arid based upon the seriousness of the charges and his past disciplinary record, dismissal was appropriate. It closed by asking that the discipline not he disturbed and the claim remain denied.
The Board has thoroughly reviewed the transcript and record of evidence and will first address the Organization's procedural arguments. Countless Boards have determined that telephonic testimony is acceptable and does not deny an employee his right to a "fair and impartial" I learing nor is it improper for a decision to be rendered by a Disciplinary Officer that \.,,,as not in attendance of the Investigation. Additionally, Boards have ruled that it is acceptable to remove an employee from service pending their Investigation when serious charges are filed and it does not indicate pre -judgment. After consideration of the various arguments and the facts of this case the Board has determined that the Investigation and appeal process met the guidelines of` Rule 13(a) the Discipline: Rule and Appendix NO. I 1 and the Claimant was afforded his "due process" Agreement rights.
(>n pages 76 and 77 of the transcript the Claimant testified that he was absent without authorization oil July I 8th and he had requested eight hours pay at straight time fir that day. Oil page 78 fie was asked the following question:
The only issue remaining is whether the discipline was appropriate. At the time of the incident Claimant had approximately 15 years of service: with two actual suspensions anti three record suspensions (one of which was a Lcvcl S that was ,till within his '1b month revicw period), Dishonest behavior is a stand-alone disnussible offense anti in this instance it is coupled with a less than stellar work record. 1 hc: Board finds and holds the disini,hal assessed against the Claimant will not be set aside as it was in accordance: with the C'arrier's Policy for Ftnployee Performance Accountability (ITPA) and it was not excessive. arbitrary or capricious. l lie claim will remain denied.