5. Immoral.

6. Quarrelsome or otherwise vicious."

Form J. Award No. 6984

Page 2 Docket No. 6875

2-SZSW -Ma-' 76

We find there is substantial evidence in support of the charges that Claimant was abusive and quarrelsome with respect to the acting supervisor and the plant manager. The cases are legion to the effect that the Board will not interfere with a decision involving discipline where there is sufficient or substantial evidence in support. We are obligated to consider only the charges made and whether or not the Claimant is guilty of other violations under Rule N is not relevant.

The additional .charge that Claimant-threatened the acting supervisor with bodily harm merits separate consideration. Although the record may contain other threats, the one to be considered is derived from that part of the acting supervisor's testimony which reads:

"As we left the office I told Mr. Mitchell (the Claimant) 'I think you have lost your job'. He told me that if I kept messing with him he would whip my skinny honky ass."

This statement attributed to Claimant was outside the hearing of witnesses and Claimant denies making it. It is Petitioner's view that there is nothing in the transcript supporting Carrier's charge of threatened bodily harm. We do not agree. While it is true that evidence of the threat is derived from the uncorroborated testimony of a supervisory employee involved, we believe the Carrier could rely upon it unless it was prompted by bad faith or some improper motive.

In Second Division Award 4981, Referee Harold M. Weston, a statement is made under "Findings" as follows:

"Carrier is entitled to rely on the observations of its supervisory to employees and there is nothing in the record to indicate that Conrad's testimony was prompted by any improper motive or bad faith."

In this case the acting supervisor's statements and actions, verified by witnesses, manifested that he wished to avoid any trouble with Claimant and there is no indication of bad faith or improper motive on his part. The Petitioner's Rebuttal makes the same point: "In this case there was no motive or reason for an altercation with either of the complaining foremen, if so, it was never established.".

Petitioner makes the -point that the acting supervisor "injected an unnecessary statement, in fact a veiled threat into an already troubled situation when he stated "I think you have lost your job". We do not see it this way. Even if we assuma the statement was unnecessary or gratuitous, it does not help Claimant because it was not a threat, veiled or otherwise. Claimant's quarrelsome coniuct had already placed his job in jeopardy under Rile N and they were enroute to see the plant manager about that. In any event it is not for the Board to speculate about this statement. In

~_,_;~ the above quoted Award 498:1, the Board made a further statement which is applicable here:

Docket :'o. 6875

2-SLS«-MA-' 76

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division