AWARDNO. 8
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF W EMPLOYES DIVISION,
) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
)
)
) CSX TRANSPORTATf ON, INC.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
L The discipline (dismissal) of Mr. B. Smale, by letter dated July 2017, connection with allegations that he violated Rules IOO. L 104.L 104.2(a) and (c), I04.3(d) and (e) and 105.1 (2)(5) was arbitrary, unsupported, unwarranted and in violation of the Agreement (System File Smale080717/2017-22547 CSX).
As a consequence of violation to
shall now ',,. returned to service, compensated for
FINDINGS:
The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is constituted by Agreement dated March 2008, this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.
Claimant was first hired by the Carrier on March 7, 2006. He was subsequently promoted to a Roadmaster position, a management position outside the scope of the Agreement. During his time in management, Claimant maintained his seniority rights under the Agreement. Because of transgressions committed by him, the Carrier terminated him as a Roadmaster, whereupon he
PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 7 J 63
No. 338
attempted to exercise his seniority in the Maintenance of Way By letter dated March 22. 20 l 7,
a 
inspections and documents. and 
tracks 
known Following the investigation, Claimant was 
Our review of the record of the investigation shows that Claimant had falsified documents showing that FRA defects on his territory had been repaired. The evidence established that a number of defects that Claimant had closed out had not been repaired. Claimant's defense was that he had been informed by a Track Inspector that the defects had been remediated or repaired, but the Inspectors working for Claimant denied telling him so. Claimant acknowledged that he never verified if the defects had been fixed, but insisted that the other employees were lying.
It is our conclusion that the Carrier had substantial evidence to support its charges against Claimant. It is not our role to make determinations about the credibility of witnesses in a company disciplinary proceeding. That is the role of the hearing officer, and we would overturn her decision only upon a finding that it was unreasonable. We can make no such finding in this case. Because of the seriousness of Claimant's offense, we do not find that the discipline imposed was either arbitrary or excessive.
In reaching this conclusion. we have rejected the Organization'sargument that Claimant was denied a fair and impartial investigation because the Carrier did not cite specific rule violations in its notice ofinvestigation. As has been addressed in numerous decisions, on this property and others, the function of the investigation notice is to inform the employee of the subject matter of the investigation and the nature of the charges against him. Absent an express requirement in the
PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 7163
No. 338 PAGI
Agreement, the Carrier is not obligated to cite specific rules that will be addressed at the investiga-
case
of due process.
AWARD: Claim denied.
mon
and Neutral Member
Andrew Mulford Employee Member
Dated: -0-2/-04-/19----
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Katrina Donovan Carrier Member