File 920620


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Employes
 to and
 Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company
 (Former Missouri Pacific Railroad)

 Statement
 of Claim: 1. Carrier violated the Agreement, especially Rule 12,
 when J. Young, Jr. (SSN 429-92-6989) was dismissed from
 service on July 28, 1992.

        2. Claim in behalf of Mr. Young for wage loss suffered beginning June 29, 1992, until reinstated with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired.


Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of
 the parties Agreement establishing this Board therefor.
 This case is related to Award No. 602 which by
 reference is incorporated herein and made part hereof.
 The Claimant was notified on June 29 to attend a formal
 investigation on the charge that on May 28, 1992:
 "you were convicted of seven charges of theft by deception,
 based on your plea of guilty in the Municipal Court of Wynn,
 Arkansas on that date."
 Carrier concluded culpability from the hearing held in
 absentia and assessed dismissal as discipline therefor.
 The Claimant was accorded the due process to which
 entitled. The Union objected as to the action of Special
 Agent Woods' untimely serving the outstanding warrant on
 Claimant Young and arresting him before the investigation
 commenced and turned him over to the North Little Rock
 Police. One can construe hastiness on the part of Agent
 Woods. However, the fact remains that the Claimant, in
 fact, had already pled guilty to the criminal charges.
 There was sufficient evidence introduced, including the
 court proceedings which showed that Claimant had pled guilty
 to the charge, to sustain Carrier's conclusions of
 culpability of the charge placed against the Claimant. This
 claim is denied. The charges were all rolled into one and
 the Claimant pled guilty. Special Agent Woods placed into
 the record all the court documents necessary to prove the
                        -2- Award No. 603


        charges. Claimant pled guilty. The seven charges were all merged into one charge and the fine was to be repaid within 24 hours. It was the Claimant's failure to comply therewith and he also failed to show up in court which led to the Claimant's plea of guilty in court on May 20, 1992 to the seven charges of theft by deception which had the effect of branding him as a dishonest person.


        The Claimant's failure to comply with the agreement that he made in court through his attorney and his plea of guilty has placed him in the position from which he now appeals.


        The Carrier's conclusion of dismissal therefor is found to be reasonable. This claim will be denied. The Carrier does not need to employ a dishonest employee.


Award: Claim denied.

          Qr~ra7a.,e~·o S~


S. A. Hammons, Jr. Employee Member K thy ex an de , Carrier Member

                          JJ y v~

                      thur . Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


Issued November 27, 1993.