SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 109
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2419D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
DISPUTE: Claim of the-Organization that:
1) The dismissal of C.L. Parham for violation of NRPC Rule F(3)
on July 7, 1977, was on the basis of unproven charges and in
violation of the Agreement;
2) The Claimant shall be reinstated to service with seniority
and all other rights and benefits unimpaired, his record
cleared of the charge leveled against him and he shall be
compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant C.L. Parham was employed as a trackman by Carrier.
By Notice of Investigation dated January 23, 1989, Claimant was
charged with the following:
1) In that on January 8, 1989, you reported for duty at
approximately 11:00 p.m. at Odenton MW Base and were
required to submit to a urinalysis drug screen which was
tested and confirmed as positive for mood changing
substances.
2) In that on your employment application signed and dated
July 7, 1977, you falsely answered no to that portion
which asks "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
The trial was held on April 10, 1989, and as a result Claimant was
found guilty of the charge of violation of Rule of Conduct F(3) and
assessed the discipline of dismissal 3n all capacities. The
organization thereafter filed
a
claim on Claimant's behalf,
challenging his dismissal.
This Board has reviewed the procedural claims raised by the
Organization and we find them to be without merit.
This Board has thoroughly reviewed the evidence and testimony in
9vP-10
'this case and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record
to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of violating Rule
F(3) when he falsely answered "no" on his employment application to
the question asking him if he had ever been convicted of a felony. It
has been established in the record that in 1973 the Claimant was found
guilty of possession of a controlled substance and received a sentence
which included a suspended jail term and probation for two years.
Moreover, the Claimant admitted at the hearing that in 1974 he was
convicted of aggravated assault and that that was a felony. The
Claimant's explanation that he was writing fast does not justify his
wrongful statement. He completely left these two incidents off the
application even though he included others.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our
attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set
aside a carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find the
carrier's action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Falsifying an employment application has been held to be a
dismissable offense on numerous occasions in the past. This Board
cannot find anything in the record to justify overturning the
Carrier's decision in this case. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied. -
Chairman, Neutr ember
Carrier Member Employee Member
Date:
a(I~U
2