:.. `!-I hU .i[~'t~o... o` _.
i _ _ i_i t Pc Aj0X:id?'. ,16,.:v.3 a`L:
 Y '

 '! ...~Q~'`2 -p.:, ~_ur nL1 )i,_,j.m

 ..so I_d,..-) _ j you i._

 :o _`:C;a-

 _,J ,. ,,

 YTI`L'ld .. ,. w4 j , 'Y'
 maq .,1 aii (1 n

_ ,''. ,. _u-. , 0 . '·j^ . '?Uv.: '1

 _

 v.

 04 all .f
 ~'

 ,q A ".

 MICA

 Y ; .a - .- l-:Y .L jV
.~ ;7L ` _ i' 0?'I_ wr ._ ol J1 '.).-_,Z1Wz

 ~,-. ,- . . ...

 ,.. ·::l;;' &L

 I J 'r,L'~

. ; J. rl` ` , .. _

 ,:"i;);'~ ,u:_?'~. ll;('e-...

 .v1 _?iI, -...

 ., 'C:r_:r;o-r ; `t Miami : o _::Z; t ''_i(; jU '~.i.~` ;.T ·-)Ai:'c';v. . ·=y.n: ; ;J _ . i's . Ca`lr ., T'_?,:C`e;,i
 ~1' .


·'1 . ; -' .+. ~:~ 1>. u . , ~.7 . _ C ~. - , ,- ... ..

 ..r.IW Pv.,.. .. .,., W ,v,r , .1ql .uf.Ar10:.

 · , -: .J no , cJ , , . _ CL'

 iI ~. ~._ J
 _i_a.. ,.a:;'. J

 GAL .I 1 0(J ~._I .~_

 wp.?I 'C'~;- P,ir':sj

 _ .> sya-r ' ~. J

 S.; C!_ a,- ,vlYy _ ~ r jT_I· .:i:J.'.


LIT. put _ ;:'y:=.:T. , _ ,. .,_ -? ^q, 30 0 P_,'.1.s-; ?vTm C?I_ , . i Vvo,_ g aLjT


r io a ~(.L.:( i I-' i_ . _.. I,J. M:v.1. .,I ~.'~LJl. :..,__ ..~i~f_.

 `f LET ''::,iI
 Foam 1 ' Award No. 7812
 Page 2 Docket No. 7720
 2-C8~IW-EW-' 79

 Nester testified that Claimant came to the ir°ashraom, announced that they would settle their differences, and proceeded to hit him several tunes injuring his left eye. Hester asserts before the altercation started he attempted to leave the ,.,,aohroom, but z~,-as prevented from doing so by Claimant, who pushed him away from the door and t:ncn, assaulted him. It was not until Claimant left the washroom that he le-ft and got assistance.
Claimant, an the other hand, testfied that Hester sunznoned him to his office; that Nester pushed him; that he ivas actin; in self-defense w'nen the two "grappled"; and that he did not hit Hester. Claimant also stated that his shirt was torn and his back scratched during the altercation. Carrier's Special Agent, called to escort Claimant off the property, stated at the hearing that he observed Claimant changing his clothes in the e:rployee' s -~-ash room preparatory to leaving the property, but did not see any torn clothing or scratches, nor did Claimant mention any inju?'v. The Snap Superintendent, :':ho accomps.nAed the Special Agent, affirmed the Special Agent's statements.

 We are thus confronted with a conflict of testimony. Numerous awards of this Board have ruled that 9_t is not the Board's function to review a Carrier's determination of tre credibility of vT;.tnesses ox to resolve conflicts in evidence unless it can be demonstrated that the evidence is insaff9_cient ox trie,t tree Carrier acted in a capx1_ciaus manner. The transcript in this case contains s.~;ostantaal evidence in su.pT)ort of the charges against the Claimant. ITa arbi txaxy action on the fart of Carrier is here shown.

 The Oxganiza;uion, in its .rebuttal, stresses that the Carrier did not call P:1r. Buxess as a witness--to testify as to whether the General Foreman did ox dial not ask Claimant to come to his office, as alleged by Claimant. However., neither Claimant nor the Organization requested i~Ir. Buxess' presence at the investigaticn as a witness for Claimant. Furthermore, Clazirant was ready to proceed with the investigation and did not proffer ox offer to proffer additional evidence into the record. at the end of the hearing.

 The weight of the testi.~nony supports Carrier's findings. We will not disturb Carrier's discipline. The claim will be denied.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 ~,W~,~,..,.,T,TS:.t<,~,~?a1 riai.lroad Adjustment Board

                      A 2

                        '


          d *i~ _° .,~ a ~ r:,Jl .~, _w ;s

By °y.: ~, -s· nc,° :.a'!.®3':'-srl ~.~.F,a r,.rt' A^'"' w^:x .uea',ms::nd'".`,.
          '- ~ :e.,.~..~..5.-


    x,o

      qLnar:._e Dx°asc:.. - ..~:ai:a:i_sv.-.~lvc a.`~-i,_,°~rti~' s.

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this lOCh day of Januar~,r, 197 9·