PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
 TO
 DISPUTE: NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) -
 NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

        1. The dismissal of Track Foreman M. R. Thomas of NRPC Rules F and K on July 19, 20, 21, 25 and 26, 1988 was arbitrary, capricious, without just and sufficient cause, on the basis of unproven charges and in violation of the Agreement (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-2369D).


        2. The Claimant shall be reinstated to service with seniority and all other rights and benefits unimpaired, his record cleared for all wage loss suffered."


FINDINGS:

    Claimant M. R. Thomas was employed as a Track Foreman. Claimant


was instructed to attend a hearing in connection with the following

 charge:

      "Whereas of Tuesday, July 19, 1988, you personally approved and submitted time cards for yourself and T. H. Carey, trackman, for 1/2 hour of overtime and 3 hours of double time for payment of time that you and T. H. Carey were not rendering service. On Wednesday, July 20, 1988, you personally approved and submitted time cards for yourself and T. H. Carey, trackman, for 1/2 hour of overtime and 2 hours of double time for payment of time that you and T. H. Carey were not rendering service. On Thursday, July 21, 1988, you personally approved and submitted time cards for yourself and T. H. Carey, trackman, for 2 hours of overtime for payment of time that you and T. H. Carey were not rendering srvice. On Tuesday, July 26, 1988, you personally approved and submitted time cards for yourself and T. H. Carey, trackman, for 2 hours of overtime for payment of time that you and T. H. Carey were not rendering service."


      The hearing was begun on September 27, 1988 and was reconvened on


December 6, 1988 and as a result, Claimant was dismissed from service.

 The Organization thereafter filed a claim challenging his dismissal.

    This Board has reviewed the procedural arguments raised by the

      0 qgce-I DZ

organization and we find them to be without merit.

 This Board has also reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of falsifying time cards on the dates in question.

 Once this

 in the record to attention to the

 Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence

 support the guilty finding, we next turn our type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set

 aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find the action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.

 In the seniority.

 case at hand, the Claimant had 19 and 1/2 years of
 However, given the seriousness of the offense, which

 constitutes theft, this Board cannot find that the action taken by the Carrier in terminating the Claimant's employment was unreasonable,

 arbitrary or capricious. Numerous Boards have held t;:

 employee is found guilty of a dishonest act, the Carri to terminate that employment because it can never trus to perform as an honest employee. This Board will not

 Carrier's decision to terminate the Claimant.

 AWARD
Claim denied.

 Carrier Member Orgary'

 Date: /6- /7- g~1

 er

 t

 Oncc ~n has a right that employee set aside the