SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 947
Case No. 165
 Award No. 165

 Claimant: L.

 PARTIES
 TO
 DISPUTE

 STATEMENT
 OF CLAIM

 S. Sanchez, Jr.
Southern Pacific Transportation Company

 That the Carrier's decision to assess Claimant a fifteen (15) working day suspension without pay was excessive, harsh and in abuse of discretion and violation of the terms and provisions Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 That because of the Carrier's failure to prove and support the charges by introduction of substantial bona fide evidence, that carrier now be required to reinstate and compensate Claimant for any and all loss of earnings suffered, and that the charges be removed from his record.

 unduly in of the

 FINDINGS
Upon reviewing the record, as submitted, I find that the Parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Special Board of Adjustment is duly constituted and has jurisdiction of the Parties and the subject matter; with this arbitrator being sole signatory.

 The Claimant was employed as a Foreman for the Southern Pacific Lines and was headquartered at Lordsburg, New Mexico. By letter dated May 8, 1995, he was directed to appear at a formal investigation at the Tucson Yard office, 1255 S. Campbell Avenue, Tucson, Arizona, at 9:00 a.m.. The letter further advised that he was being charged with the possible violation of Rule 1.6, that part reading:

 1.6 CONDUCT

 Employees must not be:




originally been taken from an SP train and found stored under a
 bridge. The stolen property was then retrieved and placed in the
 storage room of the Roadmaster'soffice at Wilcox, Arizona
 awaiting pick up by a Special Agent of theRailroad. The
 Roadmaster saw all ten stereo units on.the_morning_.of April 12,
 1995, while he was collecting other work materials from the
 storage room. Around 8:30 p.m., the same day, he was notified
 that someone had brokeninto his offce. Accompanied by police,
 he discovered all but three of. the stereo unitsmissing. One SP _
 employee had been arrested for the theft. Hespoke with the
 employee that evening by phone and visited with him the next day.
 It is unclear as to whether the employee charged implicated the
 Claimant or not, but, for some reason, the Roadmastersought out
 the Claimant the next day to question him about the-incident. _.

 Around 1:30 p.m., the Roadmaster interviewed the Claimant at the west switch at Rase. The Claimant denied any involvement in the theft and was very cooperative. He told the Roadmaster that the other individual had brought three stereo__untsto his . trailer the night before and asked himto store them for him while he went to get another load out of the back room of the Roadmaster's office. The Claimant also_gAve the Roadmaster a set of keys which-he said he had taken fromthe other employee the night before.

 The Claimant was never charged with the theft and no disciplinary action was taken against the Claimant-until after the Investigation. He was then suspended for a period of fifteen (15) working days for violating Rule 1.6. The Organization filed the instant claim.

 The Organizationcontends there is no-evidence to prove the Claimant had anything to do with theft. In fact, there is every probability, they say, that there was no theft involved in, this case. It is not unreasonable to conclude that ,the. other employee found the stereo units and brought them to his Foreman for storage. There is no justification for charging the Claimant in this case. The Claimant should be_reinstated...with no loss of pay or benefits.
The Carrier contends the Claimant,-after all, had in his possession stolen property which he had not turned into the authorities. He also had in his possession a setof keys to theRoadmaster's office.

                      DISCUSSION


There are no facts which show that the Claimant was actually involved in the theft of the stereo units. However, there is evidence that he received property from another employee which he knew had been taken from the Roadmaster's office in Wilcox on the same evening. In fact, he not only told the Roadmaster that, but
 also indicated the otheremployee asked him to store the- _
 materials while he went to get another-load..- He testified he z__
 never provided the Roadmaster with this information, but,- his
 testimony is not credible. He also said he did notsee the other
 employee the night before until nearly 9:00-p.m..--However, from
 the police report, we know that the other employee was arrested
 around 7:58 p.m. on April 12, 1995. Therefore, he would have had
 to deliver the stereo units to the Claimant's trailer sometime -_
 earlier than 7:58 p.m.. The Claimant, especially in his position
 as Foreman, had an obligation to contact SP autho_rjjties,_ but,
 apparently did nothing until approached by the Roadmaster at--1.30 _
 p.m. the following afternoon. His failure to deal with the
 situation does not cast him in very good light.- Even if he was
 not directly involved in the theft, his actions at the very least
 constituted aserious.dereliction of his responsibilities to the- __
 employer. For this reason, the Board believes the fifteen (15)
 working day suspension was warranted. _

                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

                              Carol J. Zamperini, Neutral


Submitted:

 October 26, 1995 Denver, Colorado

                            3