"orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6364
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6193
2-SOU-CM-'72
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irving R. Shapiro when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 21, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Southern Railway Company
I
Dispute: Claim of Employes:





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


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 claimant herein admitted committing assault and battery upon his supervisor. In Awards too numerous to cite, this Board has held that such conduct constitutes just and sufficient cause to terminate an employe. i


established concept by alleging that the claimant was provoked into ccamfitting the I
uunishable acts. Except for the claimant's own subjective responses to the cir
f =stances on the night of October 15, 1970, the record herein fails to support

i

I



Form 1 Award No. 6364
Page 2 D 93
2- OU-CM-'72
                                                          .


this allegation. It further charges that the Carrier failed to sustain the full basis upon which it removed the claimant from service, namely;" insubordination, ... and immediately leaving the premises without regard for the welfare of your supervisor etc."., in addition to the admitted. attack and physical violence coninitted. The Carrier is only required to establish that it had just cause to separate claimant from its service. Even if it could be held that it did not present substantial evidence to sustain those charges, it would be imaterial, the record being sufficient to support a meaningful ground for the action taken.

As to the Organization's plea that the penalty was excessive, con sidering the claimant's seventeen years of service, we reassert the holding of all divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board which were best summarized by Referee Whiting i$ Third Division Award No. 60$5 as follows:

          "There is a vast difference between the correction ®f an excessive penalty and reinstatement on a leniency basis. We can correct an excessive penalty because the imposition of such a penalty is a violation of those provisions of the agreement which are adopted to protect employes from arbitrary, eapric6fts or discriminatory discipline by the carrier. Reinstateaent on a, leniency basis is a discretionary remission of an appropriate penalty. We do not remit penalties on a leniency basis because we have no power or right to exercise managerial discretion."


The Claimant having been afforded a fair hearing, the record indicating substantial evidence to sustain a finding of just cause for dismissal and the penalty imposed was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion we will not reverse the determination by the Carrier. (see Awards 1323 3092, 2087, 2769, 3874, 4000, 4001, 4089, 4132, 4195, 4199, 4693, 6196, 621+0

                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division


Attest:
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September, 1972.