Following the Investigation, the Carrier reviewed the evidence presented at hearing and determined the Claimant had violated the rules as cited. He was suspended for five (5) working days.
on the day the alleged rule violations took place the Claimant had been asked by his Track Supervisor if he would like to earn some extra money by working two hours after work to repair the track in the siding belonging to one of the companies which used the Carrier to transport materials. He, along with three other employees, did the work. He was paid $50.00.
The evidence produced at hearing showed that Carrier employees had originally begun work on the siding during working hours, but, subsequently were informed it was not the responsibility of the Carrier, but instead had to be repaired at the expense of the customer. At that point, the crew was pulled off the job and the customer eventually contracted with a Carrier Foreman and Track Supervisor to complete the work. As described above, the task was completed after working hours. However, there does seem to be sufficient evidence based on the early interviews with the Track Supervisor and Foreman, that there was at least some use of Company equipment in completing the repairs. Beyond that, the work was not completed with the kind of expertise the Carrier would expect from its employees. As a result, the Employees were charged with the aforementioned rule violations.
This Board does not believe there is sufficient proof to hold the Claimant responsible for either misconduct or the misappropriation of Company materials for his personal use. While the initial explanation of the event provided by the Track Supervisor seemed to indicate some carrier claw bars and spike mauls were used by the Employees, it is equally true, the evidence suggests the equipment was there when the Claimant arrived. It is also apparent that the incident was governed by the Foreman and the Track Supervisor. Considering the employment status of those involved, it was reasonable for the Claimant to assume the Supervisors were acting appropriately in arranging to have the work performed with the equipment at hand. Therefore, this Board does not believe the Claimant is guilty of the cited rule violations.