to and a follow-up of the Patun incident, which was briefly explained at pages 2 and 3 of the carrier's statement of facts. While it was proven that Patun was intoxicated, Mr. Emmerich in his testimony at the hearing, as well as his testimony in the instant dispute, never admitted that Patun smelled of alcoholics, much less that he was intoxicated; this in view of the fact that the testimony of several reliable witnesses was to the effect that Patun not only smelled of alcoholics but obviously was under the influence of liquor and in no condition to perform his duties. In the handling of the Patun case, the carrier was subject to some rather rank and embarrassing accusations from the organization, which will not be mentioned here but will only say that after a more thorough and extensive investigation by the organization the carrier was fully and completely exonerated of the alleged mishandling, as will be noted after reading General Chairman McLennan's letter to the carrier's general manager, Mr. J. N. Landreth, dated May 11, 1955. Further, it is not quite understandable, in view of the organization's final findings in the Patun case as expressed by the general chairman in his letter identified as carrier's Exhibit C, why the organization did not withdraw their objections in the Emmerich dispute.

The purpose of carrier's exhibit C is to show the Board the complete reversal of attitude and position taken by the organization in the Patun incident, and to prove to the Board, regardless of the claimant's testimony that he was motivated by a sincere desire to assist a sick man, he obviously knew Patun's condition but due to apparent ulterior motives on his part he chose to handle the situation as he did which, without question, was in violation of Rules Nos. 6 and 20 of Form 2626. It will be noted in the investigation notes that the claimant specifically stated he was fully familiar with Rules 6 and 20, therefore, since it has been proven beyond a doubt that Mr. Emmerich violated the rules, the carrier firmly believes the discipline should stand as assessed.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Claimant was regularly assigned as an electrician 7:30 A. M. to 3:30 P. M., Wednesday through Sunday. On Sunday, July 18, 1954, claimant and Electrician J. G. Patun were found in a mail car. Patun was evidently intoxicated and claimant was giving him first aid. Patun was subsequently dismissed from the service for intoxication and claimant was given thirty (30) demerits for being away from his assigned tour of duty during working hours. The organization contends that the thirty (30) demerits imposed on claimant were unjust.

The record shows that claimant was observed by two (2) Assistant Division Special Agents assisting Patun. Claimant was found in a mail car applying ice and a cold towel to Patun's head. For the purposes of this dispute, Patun was intoxicated, completely helpless and clearly in need of assistance. Claimant was rendering the assistance that he could to get him out of the condition he was in. He was charged with absenting himself from duty in violation of Rule 20 of carrier's unilateral general rules. Wo do not think that claimant was guilty of this charge. An employe who helps another employe who is incapacitated for any cause is not an employe absent from duty within the meaning of this rule. A fellow employe has a duty to protect a stricken employe even if he is intoxicated. Certainly no carrier desires fellow employes to stand by while an intoxicated employe subjects himself to injury.

AWARD