STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

The discipline (dismissal) assessed Mr. B. Robarge, by letter dated December 6, 2014, for alleged violation of General Code of Operating rules (GCOR) 1.6 Conduct in connection with allegations ofreporting false or dishonest infom1ation on November 6, 2014 was arbitrary, capricious, without just and sufficient cause and in violation of the Agreement.
As a consequence ofthe violation referred to in Part l above, we request that Claimant B. Robarge be returned to service immediately, that his record be cleared of this discipline, that he be compensated all tosses suffered due to the Carrier's improper discipline and that he be afforded all other reliefcontained in the Organization's letter ofclaim dated January 14, 2015.

FINDINGS:

This Public Law Board 7357 finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee, within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

By letter dated December 6, 2014, the Claimant, Mr. Broderick Robarge was notified by the Carrier that he was assessed the discipline of dismissal from service with Canadian Pacific Railway as follows:

PLB NO. 7357

AWARD NO. 56

Dear Sir:

As a result of the facts developed at the formal investigation hearing, held Monday, November 171\ 2014 you have been found failing to comply with GCOR Rule L6 Conduct

This is a result ofyour Time entry for the date ofNovember 4th when you entered 10 hours straight time when you were absent from duty as a Trackman Truck Driver

You are hereby dismissed from service with Canadian Pacific Railway, effective immediately.

s/Andre Lafleur - Director of Track Renewal

The Organization appealed the discipline and the matter has been progressed to this Board for adjudication.

No basis exist in the record before this Board to set aside the discipline on procedural grounds.

Employees fill out their time sheets and fax them to Timekeeper Silvio Evangelista in Toronto who inputs the time, and Mr. John Harvey, the Manager ofTrack Renewal, thereafter approves or disapproves the time sheet. 'The Claimant was absent on November 4, 2014. He was notified by Mr. Harvey that his time sheets for the entire work week ending on November 6 had not been received by Silvio. The Claimant testified that he telephoned Silvio on November 6 and put in his time for the work week over the phone as directed by Mr. Harvey (See Tr. 51- 52). And, Mr. Harvey testified that the timekeeper thereafter told him that the Claimant had claimed time (pay) for November 4, after putting in the time over the phone on November 6. As a result, Mr. Harvey kept asking the Claimant to fax in the time sheets for the work week. And, the record shows that on the 10th, the following Monday, the Claimant faxed the time sheets in, but they were not signed. And, on November 11, Mr. Harvey asked the Claimant to come in and sign them which he did - signing for IO hours pay for November 4, 2014, a day on which he did

PLB NO. 7357

AWARDN0.56

not woi-k. While the Claimant contends that it was a mistake and he not do it dishonestly we are compelled to find that substantial evidence of record, including Mr. Ha1vey's testimony and

signed timesheet. suppm1s the Carrier's determination that the Claimant was in violation of GCOR Rule l.6 conduct when he entered 10 hours straight time for November 4, 2014 when he was in fact absent on that dates The Claimant had seven months of servicewiththe Company at the time of this incident. We find that the Carrier's assessment of the discipline of dismissal was neither arbitrary, capricious nor excessive. We must deny this claim.

Award Claim denied.

Organtzatfon Member