r orm 1 ''TATIOiiAL RAILROAD ADJUSTi:E;''~1'I' BOARD Award ?`To. 7-50
SECOND DIVISIOH Docket i~io. 7427
2-SLSF-TI In -' `; J

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition referee Herbert L. i~axx, Jr. when award eras rendered.

( International Association of :Machinists and Aerospace Workers Fatties to Dispute;

(

( St. Louis-San = ranci sco Railway Company

Dispute: Claim of 7-tiployes:

1. That the St. Louis - San Francisco Railway Compares unjustly suspended

Machinist R. 'r7. Cram ftom service beginning July Ll, 176, and

subsequently dismissed him from. service on Augrast 2, 1976 fox an

alleged altercation between himself and upgraded 1Tachinist

A,ppxerztice Ollie ~~iilliatns, on July 11, , 11076.

2. That accordingly, the St. Louis - San Francisco Railway Ccwpan- be

ordered to corcpensate v?achinist R. W. Crain at tile pro rata rate

of pay for each Taro r > day beginning july 11 , 1-)7" Un he is

reinstated to service. In addition, he shall receive all cenef=is

accruing to any other am-p1oyee in active service, including

vacation rights and seniority unimpaired.

3. Claim is also made for Vachinist F. w. C rainy s actual loss of

payment of insurance or, his dependents and hospital benefits

for himself, and that he be made whole for pension benefits,

including Railroad Retirement and T-'1nen-jolc-,,F-.nent insurance.

I r_ addition to the ~roney claimed herein, the St. Louis - :an F ranC4SCO Railway Ccmnany s1nall ray additional ~'~' ~er ar__rnL~?, cc.Founded anruaL;- on the

s,_~:_ of anni'Tc'=Sa_~r date of Sa1d Clai.:'!, in addition to arry other wages earned elsewhere 1'.^i order that he 7,De made whole.

Finding-s:

the Second Division of the Adjustment Roard, upon the whole record am

all the evidence, finds that: -~:e~,ri~m~

T he c-j ~ed the et ~ F.m -1 r-, p s -jy r

carrier o_ Y' c_ awv.r_ _%'s ~.r~_ T?^ :p~of~ ~of ~ or _ p~.o r.ro1~. ed i n t

d.1- o Nt?,^r;eCy'~f-~-r~ ply cWr»ier and _iTtL ·in ~ ;' Vii .., A
-outar'e _r7 . e , lir ~.,:~ ~~ :rr o.,~
~:ail-rwy Labor c t aa ap-r oTr ed ~iur_e 21, l G'~..

T:~is Division of the ad,z:,tment 7-card ..as .1arisd_ction over ti.a disv-.t

_i1TOl..Ted -er 1=1.

`:rt1'.=S t0 a2.~Cv ''~=3pUto T?,':eQ ri~?t O-f a-!~'o-.3ra-nCe at nearing ~h~_eOP.

Form 1 -Az-ra;cd Ho. 7+50
Page 2 Docket No. 7.27
2-S:ESF-_.Ta - ' 78

Claimant T~'achinist R. W. Crain, was suspended from service on -IuL--'y I!, 1970, and, after an investigative hearing, eras dismissed from seat,=ice on august 2, 1976 fox violation of Rules A and B. which read in mart:

Rule A: "E:rployes must not enter into altercations with any person, no matter what provocation may be given, but will make note of the facts and report to their irmediate supervisor."

Rule B: "Employes who axe quarrelsome- ox otherwise vicious will not be retained in the service."

the Organization objected to the hearing -procedure in that the hearing officer issued the letter of charges and also imposed the penalty.

As indicated in many previous awards, most recently Award No. 7L49, this is not in itself prejudicial to a fair and impartial hearing. In the present instance, the Board finds no fault with the hearing procedure, which included giving the Claimant himself the opportunity to question witnesses.

The Board finds no basis to substitute its judgzr!ent fox that of the ~.arrie-- in it-- decl S4
to dismiss the Claimant from service. The record choirs that the Claimant eras provoked bar unacceptable language directed at
at employe. Nevertheless, the Claimant was found to have made threats against the other employe which had to be taken seriously. As such, they -were a clear violation of the rules and made his continued empl o;;Tment unacce~otabl e. :".ward iTo. 008+ (i~TCCovern), az-,ono others, makes a sin~ilar holding. If the incident had stood entirely alone, there might have been call fox considering some lesser penalty. In this instance, however, tale Claimant had been restored to service by the Carrier only taro months earlier on a leniency basis following a similar type of offense. This puts the Carrier's actions beyond any consideration of modification.

`! he Organization also objected to the Claimant being susreraded i::~medi atel y ~a-ithout awaiting the results of an investigative r_earing. In the presence of tne serious threats made by the Claimant, t he Board finds that the Carrier's representative acted in an entirely reasona:bl` manner.

n T,, c R D

Claim denied.

=ua~"'ICT~y~ R<=_I'=1C_a~; ^~.~:ST~:~:'I' BC_~t

5y Order C* Second D~:ViSiOn

__~tert: _aeCil'L7..'re 0SeCretav"',j
_T~.T.10nS.1 '~ .~lr 08.01 _~d: _:.T:::e nt JO=?.r

L. . : .:

_'.L7.:eaia.ril:. Ef - _-_1 .i::_1'_~i:Ul!_ uli-Te'7lUCijicJ '~'

Ti C.Li

Dated at C'nicago, Illinois. this 24th day of Ja,luary, 1978.