1 '=orTAL RA ILROAD ADJUS= rIr BOARD Airar d '-,,ToForm . 7+51

SECOND DIVISIO~4' Docket Ho. 7447

2-SLSF-TEA-' 78

The Second Division consisted of the regular me:::cDers and in

addition F.eferee Herbert L. ?Marx, j r. -,z'_~.en award was rendered.

( International Association of Machinists

( and Aerospace ~doriiers

Patties to Dispute:

(

( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

Dispute: Claim of Em-ployes:

1. That the St. Louis - San Francisco Raihrray Company unjustly dismissed Machinist Ollie Williams from service or, August 2, 19; 6 for an alleged altercation between himself and Machinist R. V. Crain on July u, 1976.

2. That accordingly, the St. Louis - San Francisco Railway Company be ordered to compensate Machinist Ollie Williams at the pro rata rate of pay for each work day beginning August 2, 1976 until he is reinstated to service. In addition, he shat receive all benefits accruing to any other employee in active service, including, vacation rights and seniority unimpaired.

3. Claim is also made for Machinist 0111 a Williams' actual loss of payment of insurance on his dependents and hospital benefits for himself, and that he be made Tfrnole for pension benefits, including Railroad Retirement and Unemployment insurance.

In addition to the money claimed herein, the St. Louis - San Francisco Rail.aay Company sinall pay Machinist Ollie Williams an additional s= of 6~) per anrnun, compounded annually on the anniversary date of said claim, in addition to any irag_es earned elsewhere in order that he be made whole.

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 e_~:roloye within the meani ng of the Rail-,~ray Labor Act as axoroved June 21, 193.

This Division of the -Adju.Stament ROard has luX'iSCE=Cti On O'le:C to d=Sju;.e involved herein.

Parties to said dis-,u.1e T~aived r i`ht of appear ante wt hearing t her:.on.

_. __

Foam 1 Award No. 7+51
Fage 2 Docket No. 7447 ~`

2-sT sF-~NLk- t 78

Claimant, upgraded Machinist Apprentice Ollie Williams, was dismissed from service on August 2, 1976, fox violation of '-Rules A and B, which read in part:

Rule A: "Employes must not enter into altercations with

arms person, no matter what provocation may be given, but

will make note of the facts and report to their immediate

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 mares previous awards, most recently Award No. 7449 and Award No. 7+50, 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 Claimant is acc-ased primarily of using vile and abusive language to a fellow employe, Machinist R. W. Crain. Direct evidence of this comes. from Crain's account to his supervisor shortly after the alleged occurrence and in Crain's testimony at the investigative hearing. The supervisor's judqnent of what occurred is substantiated to some degree by his own presence with the two men shortly after the disputed started. W?lliams did not concede that he used the specific words as Crain had related it.

From the record as a whole, however, the Board finds no basis to question the Carrier's conclusion that the Claimant had violated rule B in a deliberate and definitive manner in being `'quarrelsome" and "othenrise vicious". With this finding, it is unnecessary to explore farther the questions of credibility involved in alleged violation of Rule A.

The Carrier's operations are severely hampered by self-provoked dis-harmony among its employes; accusations and name-calling, if tolerated by the Carrier, can lead to fax more serious consequences fox the employes involved and thus for the Carrier. The Carrier acted against Williams only after a thorough hearing of the facts. Rio impropriety can be found in the decision to avoid future serious conseGUer_ces by dimissing the Claimant from service.

A y^1 A R D

Claim denied.

Form 1 A,,eard ITO. 751
page 3 Docket ITO. 7447
2-sr SF _ra_ t 7g

T~IATIOT:AL RAILROAD AD;TUSrTHr;INT BOARD

Bar Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
1Tational Railroad Adjustment Board

.. ~_._

o s

._.tRosemarie Drasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of january, 178.
p- - -._1

141000,