At all times relevant to this dispute, Claimant was assigned as a Track Inspector at Apex, North Carolina. His territory extended from Mile Post 245.8 at the Hamlet Terminal to Mile Post 156.8 at the Southern Junction of the Raleigh Yard and he would regularly start his tour of duty at Hamlet, North Carolina. Claimant has been employed by the Carrier since June 1, 1999. On various dates, Claimant used his Corporate Lodging Card to obtain overnight accommodations at the LaQuinta Inn at Cary, North Carolina. Apex is located approximately four miles from Cary and approximately 95 miles from Hamlet.

By letter dated December 29, 2008, Claimant was directed to attend a formal investigation at which he was charged with the unauthorized use of his Corporate Lodging Card on 14 occasions from January 10 through December 1, 2008. Following the investigation, Claimant was issued a thirty day suspension.

A review of the record of the investigation shows that there were dates covered by the charge on which Claimant had been specifically authorized to use overnight lodging. On others, Roadmaster Kirkland testified that the circumstances connected with his duties permitted him to obtain lodging. fie explained that employees are empowered to make such decisions when safety concerns dictate. He further explained that employees are not empowered to decide to obtain lodging for their own convenience or to avoid the payment of overtime.

Claimant testified that there were dates that he needed to stay overnight because of safety concerns, but acknowledged that there were other dates when he determined that it would be more economical for the Carrier if he stayed at the motel rather than incur overtime.

PUBLIC Law Bonan No. 7163 AWARD No. 122 PACE 3

The discipline letter issued to Claimant identified the dates that were covered by the investigation, but stated, "the facts support and confirm that you had at least eight (8) overnight stays from the above dates that you were not authorized . . ." While it would have been better to cite the dates on which the Carrier found that his stays were unauthorized, we do not find that the failure to do so is a fatal error. At the investigation, it was clear that there were four dates the Carrier believed to be incorrectly cited in the charge. There were, however, eight dates for which Claimant gave no explanation for his staying at the motel beyond saying, "Job related purposes." Thus, we find that the discipline notice was sufficient to put Claimant and the Organization on notice as to the Carrier's finding of guilt.

As to the merits of the disciplinary action, we find it significant that the Carrier has stated Claimant's discipline was for dishonesty. That requires a showing of an intent to deceive. We do not agree with the Carrier's conclusion that there is evidence of such an intent.

More importantly, it is clear that the Carrier has granted employees such as Claimant a degree of discretion in deciding whether to obtain lodging. Apparently, approval from a supervisor in advance is not required. While the Carrier has expressed some standards as to when lodging might be reasonable, there is no evidence this was communicated to Claimant. Specifically, Claimant may be correct that it would be more economical for the Carrier to pay for a night in the motel than to pay him several hours of overtime, but he apparently was never told that overtime payments would not be a factor in allowing lodging. The Carrier has a duty to make those expectations known to the employees.

Pc!E3i.tc LAw BOARD No. 7163

AWARD No. 122