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 ninety (90) working days.
The evidence produced at hearing showed that during working hours, employees had begun repairing the track on a siding that was the property of one of the Carrier's customers. At some point, they were informed that the maintenance of the siding was actually the responsibility of the customer not the Carrier. When the customer was advised of the situation, he asked the Track Supervisor '(Claimant) to reconmend soneone to complete the work. The Claimant provided the name of a Track Foreman who was subsequently contracted to make the repairs. The Claimant and the Foreman arranged to have two other employees assist them after work. Each of the other two employees were paid $50.00, while the Claimant and the Foreman shared $500.00. In addition, there does seen to be sufficient evidence based on the early interviews with the Track Supervisor and Forgnan, that there was at least sane 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. Since it was known that the individuals who canpleted the repairs were employees of the Carrier, there was a great deal of concern on the Ccanpany's part that the poor workmanship would adversely affect their reputation. As a result, the Employees were charged with the aforementioned rule violations.
The manner in which the Claimant responded to questions asked by his Supervisor following the incident leads this Board to conclude that he and the Track Foreman were aware they were violating the Rules and Regulations of the Company by using Con-pany property to repair the custcnner's track siding. They were less than forthright in the manner in which they responded to the inquiry concerning whether or not they had utilized such materials. Furthermore, since both were in a position of authority, it was totally irresponsible of there to involve other workers in actions which could have resulted in serious penalties. There is no doubt the Claimant and the Foreman governed what occurred, as well as, what Company equipment was used. It is also obvious through their testimony and the testimony of the other two employees, that the Claimant and the Foreman were the ones who profited most by the agreement with the
In reviewing the Claimant's previous work record, this Board notes he was suspended for five (5) days in 1984 for making improper repairs. Since that point in time, and prior to that time, his record has been clear. On that basis, the Board believes that despite the seriousness of the current rule violations, the penalty issued was too severe and should be modified as outlined in the Award.
The ninety (90) working day suspension is to be reduced to a sixty (60) working day suspension. The Claimant is to be reimbursed the difference in lost wages and benefits.