Zone, claim due to discipline of dismissal from service for violating Rule 501. Request is for the discipline to be canceled, Claimant reinstated and the discipline removed from Claimant's personal file and that Claimant be paid for all time lost.
organization are, respectively, Carrier and Organization, and Claimant(s) employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended: that the Board is duly constituted and has jurisdiction over the parties, claim and subject matter herein, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing, which was held on April 16, 2001, at Jacksonville, Florida. Claimant was not present in the hearing. The Board makes the following additional findings:
On August 8, 2000, the Carrier issued Mr. Morgan a letter informing him that he was charged with misuse of his Corporate Lodging Card in violation of Rule 501. The charge stemmed from Mr. Morgan's use of his Corporate Lodging Card while staying at the
Best Western Traveler's Inn in Brentwood, Tennessee on June 25, 2000, and in other lodgings facilities on separate dates. An investigative hearing in this matter was held on August 17, 2000. Mr. Morgan was found guilty of all charges and received the discipline of removal from the service.
During the August 17, 2000, hearing, Mr. Morgan testified he had not checked in at the Best Western on June 25, 2000; the registration card filled out in his name must have been a mistake. The Carrier presented sworn written testimony from David A. Barrows, the Best Western's front desk clerk who checked in Mr. Morgan on June 25, 2000. The Carrier also presented the testimony of a Conductor R. G. Harris, who was present at the Best Western on June 26 and saw Mr. Morgan check out some time in the afternoon. Claimant testified on behalf of Mr. Morgan. He testified he marked off sick on June 25, but late that night he felt better and went out with Mr. Morgan, who had moved into his residence sometime in late March or late June. The conducting official did not credit Claimant's alibi testimony and, as stated earlier, Mr. Morgan was removed from service.
Based on his August 17, 2000, testimony during Mr. Morgan's hearing, the Carrier issued Claimant a charge letter dated August 25, 2000. The letter informed Claimant that he was to attend a hearing to determine his responsibility for conduct unbecoming an employee when he allegedly made false statements and concealed facts under investigation during his testimony on behalf of Mr. Morgan. He was also accused of being dishonest, marking off under false pretenses and wilfully neglecting his duties because of his testimony that he marked off sick on June 25, 2000, yet late that night felt well enough to go partying all night.
On September 7, 2000, the Carrier held an investigative hearing concerning the charges against Claimant. During the hearing, the Carrier used a corrected transcript of Mr. Morgan's hearing which had not been made available to the organization. The organization objected to the use of the corrected transcript and requested an adjournment of the hearing so they could compare the corrected transcript with the original version made available to the Organization. The Conducting Officer denied the request, but made available to the Union a copy of the corrected transcript of
the previous hearing. The Organization also objected to the hearsay nature of Mr. Barrows' sworn written statement, and to the testimony of Conductor R. G. Harris, claiming he was biased against both Mr. Morgan and the Claimant.
Subsequent to the hearing, on September 27, 2000, the Carrier issued a letter to Claimant finding him guilty of all charges and imposing the discipline of dismissal from all service effective immediately. The Organization appealed the Carrier's decision by letter dated November 11, 2000. On December 12, 2000, the Carrier denied the appeal.
Having failed to resolve this issue on the property, it is now properly before this Board for disposition.
burden of proving Claimant violated Rule 501 by engaging in conduct unbecoming an employee when he made false statements and concealed facts under investigation, was dishonest, marked off under false pretenses and wilfully neglected his duties. Claimant was afforded a fair hearing, the Carrier argues; the corrected transcript it used in the hearing did not in any material way alter the original transcript previously made available to the Organization. Additionally, the Carrier contends, lacking subpoena powers, it could not compel the presence of Mr. Borrow to testify at the hearing. The record in Mr. Morgan's hearing and in the instant proceedings prove that Claimant was lying when he testified on behalf of Mr. Morgan, and was dishonest when he signed off under false pretenses on June 25, 2000, the Carrier maintains. The seriousness of the offenses fully warrant the discipline of dismissal from the service, the Carrier argues. It urges that the claim be denied.
The Organization argues that the claim must be sustained because Claimant never lied on the stand. Moreover, the Carrier relied on an inaccurate transcript of Mr. Morgan's hearing, the organization insists. The Carrier did not produce Mr. Barrows to testify at the hearing, the Organization urges; Claimant's guilt was established almost exclusively by hearsay evidence. The claim must be sustained, the discipline rescinded, Claimant must be reinstated in service, any mention of the discipline must be
penalty of dismissal from the service is excessive. Claimant acknowledged the seriousness of his actions and appears truly remorseful for his mistake. Under such circumstances the Board will order that the Claimant be reinstated to service, but with no back pay for time lost. The terms of the reinstatement are set forth in the Award.
The Carrier presented sufficient evidence to find Claimant guilty of providing false testimony during the August 17, 200 disciplinary hearing involving Mr. Morgan.
The Carrier failed to meet its burden of proving Claimant was dishonest and wilfully neglected his duties by marking off under false pretenses on June 25, 2000. The Carrier is ordered expunge all disciplinary notices related to this incident from Claimant's personal file.
The Board further finds that the discipline of dismissal from the service was excessive. The Carrier is order to rescind Claimant's dismissal, and a suspension for time served imposed in its place.
The Carrier shall implement this Award within 30 days from the date of issuance of this Award.
