Brotherhoo d of Maintenance of Way E mployes )
Divi sion - TBTRail Conference )
)
And )
)
Norfolk Southern Railway Comp any )
C a se No. 262
J\ ward No. 262
_(Fo_rm_er S_ou_the_rn _Rai_lwa_y C_o m_pa_ny_)
_____))
Richard K. Hanft, Chairman and Neutral Member
D. M. Pascarella, Employee Member
D. L. Kerby, C arrier Member
ST/\TEMF NT O F CLAI M:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that
The Carrier's discipline (dismissal) of \!fr..J. Martin, issued by letter dated February 22, 2013, in connection with is alleged co nduct unbeco ming an employe in that he used an NS Company credit card (NS WEX card) that was assigned to company vehicle 205623 to make gaso line purc hases for his personal ve hicle without author izatio n on Sunda y, O cto b e r 28, 2012 ($67.48), Sunday, November 25, 2012 ($79.53), Sat urday, Decem ber 8, 2012, ($66.32) and Monday, December 24, 2012 ($66.47), as well as it also being discovered that on the dates of November 5, 2012, December 17, 2012 and January 2, 2013 he used the NS WJ X card assigned to Company Vehicle 205623 to make gaso line purchases for his perso nal vehicle without authorization was arbitrary, ca pricious, un just, unwarranted, unreasonable, harsh or excessive (Carrier's Pile MW-BHJ\M- 13-01-LM-024 SO U).
J\ s a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimant J. Martin shall be made whole by restor ing him to service, exonerating him of all charges placed against him, paying him for all time lost, with seniority, q ualifications, vacation and all other rig h ts unimpaired."
FTNDJNCS:
Special Board of Adjustment 1049, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, find s and holds that E mployee and Carrier arc employee a nd carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; and, that the 13oard has jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and, that the parties to the dis put e were given due notice of the hearing thereo n and did participate therein.
Spec ial Board of Adjustmen t No. 1049
Awar d No. 262
This Award is based on the facts and circumstances of this particular case and shall not serve as a precedent in any other cases.
After thoroughly reviewing and considering the record and the parties' presentations, the Board finds that the claim should be disposed of as follows:
The unrefoted evidence on the record shows Claimant in this matter made unauthorized fuel purchases on seven (7) occasions between October 28, 2012 and.January 2, 2013. The purchases were charged to one of Carrier's NS WEX cards. Fuel purchased with the Company's WEX card is only to b e used in company vehicles. The fuel purchased was dispensed into Claimant's personal vehicle and used for Claimant' personal use. Claimant admitted to the same at the formal investigation.
Claimant, the record evidence shows, further signed a Fuel Card Acknowle dgement of Responsibility form that explained that unauthorized use of a Company WEX card can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination of employmen t.
While the O rganization avers that the discipline cannot stand because the thefts began in October, 2012 and Claimant wasn't summoned to a formal investigation until February 4, 2013, outside the thirty (30) clay time limit agreed to in Rule 40 of the Parties' Agreement, the record evidence shows that Carrier had first knowledge that something was amiss when Claimant's supervisor received a Daily Alert Report from the administrator of the WEX card provider on January 7, 2013. The supervisor related that he questioned Claimant about his involvement on January 8, 2013 and Claimant denied any knowledge of the situation. Claimant was sum moned to an investigation by letter sent January 17, 2013 and the formal investigatio n took place on February 4, 2013, 28 days after the Superv isor was alerted that there was an impropriety. T--:Ience, the O rg anization's argument must fail.
Moreover, the Organization contends that Claimant's forthrigh t admissions at the formal hearing should mitigate the penalty assessed for the offense. However, the record affirms that Claimant had the opportunity to be forthright when his superviso r questioned him about the suspect purchases on.January 8, 2013 and instead chose to feign ignorance of what was suspected. The Board can find no basis to overturn the decision reached on the property. The claim is denied.
:o;pcc 1:i.l Bo:m.l 11( r\ dju:-tnwnt No !0 49
,\ wanl No. 2<,2
·\ W,\ ll D:
( ] aim dm in l.
n. M. P:i card l:i. Employr.:l' i\lcmhl'T D. L. Kr.:rhy. C::irril·r l\kmbn
Datc<l at C:hi(;ago. 111ino i:-, Feb ruary (,, 21118