PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7564
Case No. 117/Award No. 117 Carrier File No. 10-21-0069 Organization File No. C-21-D040-6 Claimant: J.D. Czarnecki
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY )
)
-and- )
) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE ) OF WAY EMPLOYEES DIVISION )
By leter dated November 30, 2020, Mr. James D. Czarnecki received a Level S 30-day record suspension and a one-year review period because of his alleged “dishonesty and atempted the� of expenses and failure to comply with instruc�ons regarding expense repor�ng.” The Claimant allegedly violated MWOR 1.6 Conduct, GN Corporate Rule Corporate Travel Card, and GN Corporate Rule Travel and Expense.
The Organiza�on’s claim dated January 14, 2021, from George L. Loveland, Vice General Chairman, appealed the discipline and characterized it as arbitrary, capricious, and excessive.
The Organiza�on requested that the discipline outlined in the Carrier’s leter dated November 30, 2020, be “overturned and that [Claimant] be made whole for any losses associated with the outcome of this inves�ga�on as outlined above and that this discipline be removed from and no men�on …be placed on (sic) his personnel record.”
By leter dated April 23, 2020, the Claimant received no�ce that “[A]n inves�ga�on has been scheduled at 0930 hours, Thursday April 30, 2020, at…Galesburg, IL…for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility, if any, in connec�on with your alleged dishonesty and atempted the� of expenses, and failure to comply with instruc�ons regarding expense repor�ng.” A�er six postponements by mutual agreement, the inves�ga�on occurred on November 5, 2020, at 0900 hours.
1
PLB NO. 7564
AWARD NO. 117
The Carrier avers that the inves�ga�on was fair and impar�al and demonstrated by substan�al evidence that Claimant dishonestly submited out-of-pocket expenses that “did not actually take place.” Claimant admited guilt, and the assessed discipline was not excessive, arbitrary, or unwarranted.
The Organiza�on asserts that the inves�ga�on was not fair and impar�al. Claimantwas presumed guilty of the charges before the hearing. The Organiza�on claims the Carrier failed to comply with Rule 40, and the no�ce Claimant received failed to state the specific date(s) of the alleged misconduct. The Carrier could not meet its burden of proof because the record lacked sufficient facts and evidence.
Claimant is charged with viola�ng MWOR Rule 1.6, which specifies that employees must not be dishonest, and for viola�ng Corporate Rule, Corporate Travel Card. This rule applies to all BNSF employees issued a Corporate Travel Card and provides that the card must be used for all business expenses under the policy. 1 Claimant is also charged with viola�ng GN Corporate Rule Travel and Expense. Prior to the inves�ga�on, Claimant’s supervisor ques�oned Claimant about discrepancies in Claimant’s expense reports. 2 The supervisor advised Claimant to review his expense reports and make necessary changes. 3 At some point, Claimant conceded to his supervisor that his expense report contained inaccurate charges for out-of-pocket expenses.
Claimant explained that his lack of computer knowledge limited his ability to correct the mistakes. 4 Further, Claimant misunderstood the policy regarding the use of the Corporate Travel Card. 5 Claimant’s admissions provided substan�al evidence regarding the viola�ons.
Claimant’s supervisor encouraged and provided �me for Claimant to correct the discrepancies in the expense report. The inves�ga�on was fair and impar�al and complied with the mandates of Rule 40. The inves�ga�on no�ce was issued only a�er it became clear that Claimant would not correct the discrepancies in the expense report.6
The Carrier’s Policy for Employee Performance Accountability (“PEPA”) classifies this viola�on as a stand-alone dismissible viola�on. PEPA, Sec�on IV (D), Stand-Alone Dismissible Viola�on (1)(a) states the following:
1 Various excep�ons, inapplicable to the instant mater, are outlined under the policy.
2 Refences to the Inves�ga�on transcript are refered to as (“Tr.”). Tr.11-12, 17.
3 Id.11-12, 20, 23.
5 Id..31.
6 Id..24. Supervisor Thompson tes�fied that he wanted to give Claimant another opportunity to correct make the expense report. Thompson credibly tes�fied that was why he resubmited it on April 14, 2020. The inves�ga�on no�ce complied with Rule 40 in that it was issued on April 23, 2020, and scheduled to be heard on April 30, 2020.
PLB NO. 7564
AWARD NO. 117
Stand-alone Dismissible Viola�ons include … [t]he� or any other Fraudulent act that may be evidenced by the intent to defraud BSNF Railway or by taking of BSNF of BNSF Railway monies or property not due.
Dishonesty is viewed as a very serious offense, o�en resul�ng in dismissal.7
In the instant case, Claimant recieved a Level S 30-day record suspension and a one-year review period. The discipline assessed was acceptable to the Board in this case.
Claim denied.
This Board, a�er considera�on of the dispute iden�fied above, hereby orders that no
Award favorable to the Claimant be made.
Zachary Voegel, Organiza�onal Member Joe Heenan, Carrier Member
Melinda Gordon, Neutral Referee
DATED: June 20, 2023
7 See, Third Division Award Nos. 37054, 37812, 22119,39310; Public Law Board 5850.