PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7163

PARTIES TO DISPUTE

) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION,

) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

)

) CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

The Carrier' s discipline (dismissal) of Mr. A. Adams , by letter dated September 15, 2020 , in connection with allegations that he violated CSX Transportation Rule 104.10(1) and CSX Code of Ethics, was on the basis of unproven charges, arbitrary, capricious, unnecessary and excessive(System File D603820/20-8013 l CSX).
As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above:

' .. . the Carrier must clear all mention of the matter from Mr. Adam ' s personal record , and compensate him for all loss suffered. This loss includes, but is not limited to, any straight time , overtime, double-time or other Carrier provided compensation lost as a consequence of the discipline. It also includes healthcare , credit rating, inv estment, banking, mortgage /rent or other financial loss suffered as a consequence of the discipli ne.'

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 duly constituted by Agreement dated March 20, 2008, this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.

PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7163

AWARD NO. 558

PAGE2

Following an investigation at which he was charged with claiming pay for work not per formed, Claimant was dismissed from service. A review of the record of the investigation shows that Claimant was employed as a Bridge and Building Foreman with assigned hours of 7:00 am to 5:30 pm. Claimant admitted that he left work between 31 and 45 minutes before the end of his assigned hours on July 13, 15, and 16, 2020, but claimed pay for the full day on each ofthese dates.

Based upon Claimant's admissions, we must find that the Carrier had substantial evidence to support its charge against him. Claiming pay for time not worked is an offense that calls into question the employee's honesty and integrity, and the Carrier should not be obligated to retain an employee it cannot trust. The Organization has argued the discipline should be modified because Claimant was forthright and honest in admitting his violation. The time for Claimant to have been honest was the three dates he left work early and claimed pay for that time. We cannot agree that the discipline was excessive. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the various arguments advanced by the Organization and find them to be unpersuasive in this case.

AWARD: Claim denied.

Barry�

Chairman and Neutral Member

Ross Glorioso Employee Member

Dated: March 18, 2024 _ Arlington Heights, Illinois

John Ingoldsby Carrier Member