SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Award No.
77
Docket No. 105
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The dismissal of trackman Victor Roberts for allegedly
falsifying a claim for bereavement leave in August of 1980
was without just and sufficient cause, on the basis of an
unproven charge, and arbitrary. [Organization File 9KB4058T; Carrier File 81-85-200 Dl
(2) Trackman Victor Roberts shall be allowed the remedy
prescribed in Rule 19(d)."
FINDINGS:
This Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence,
finds and holds that the employes and the Carrier involved are
respectively employes and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act as amended and that the Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute herein.
On May 10, 1985, Claimant was directed to appear at a
formal investigation of the charge:
To determine your responsibility, if any, in connection for a
false claim of bereavement leave on August 27, 30, and 31, 1980
which was brought to the attention to the A.D.M.E.'s office on
may 7, 1985.
The investigation was held as scheduled, and a copy of the transcript
has been made a part of the record. We find that the investigation
was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
This Board has reviewed all of the evidence and
testimony in this case, and we find that there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support the Carrier's finding that the
Claimant was guilty of filing a false claim for bereavement leave
SQ.6-
~a-~l- ,e-u'~ -77
/~or the death of his mother in 1980 when she had in fact died in
1976. The record is absolutely clear that the Claimant's mother
died in November 1976, and that the Claimant, who began his
employment with the Carrier in August 1980, collected his
bereavement pay in 1980. Although this violation was not
discovered until 1985, it is still clear that the Claimant
obtained monetary benefits from the Carrier under false pretenses,
and therefore the Claimant subjected himself to discipline.
Once this Board determines that a Claimant has been
properly found guilty, we next turn our attention to the type of
discipline imposed by the Carrier. It is fundamental that theft
is a dismissible violation even on the first offense. The action
taken by the Claimant amounts to theft. Hence, we find that the
Carrier did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when
it discharged the Claimant for his dishonest activity.
AWARD:
Claim de ed. -
4y~
r er ember Neutral Member
2