Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8330
 SECOND DIVISIQV Docket No. 8209
 2-?,&N-CIA' 80
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No. 91, Railway Employes'
 Department., A. F. of L. - C. 1, 01
 Parties to Dispute: ~ (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:










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 employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved Jtme 21, 1934.

 This Division of the AQustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant, a carman at Boyles Yard in Birmingham, Alabama, has been employed by the carrier since 1962. On September 16, 1977, the claimant was dismissed by the carrier, after an investigation had been held on August 10, 1977, for violation of Rule 21(b) of the working rule agreement which prohibits an employee f ram engaging in other employment while on leave of absence without the carrier's approval.

 The basic facts are uncontested. On June 24, 1977, the claimant requested and was granted a two week leave of absence for the period from July 18, 1977 to JtL7.y 29, 1977. The leave of absence would follow the claimant's two week vacation which was to commence on JW,y 4, 1977. In his letter requesting leave;,
 Form 1 Award No, 8330
 Page 2 Docket No, 8209

the claimant stated that he needed the leave of absence to attend to his ill wife. On July 28, 1977, two carrier officials, the Master Mechanic and the General. Car Foreman observed the claimant operating a machine for plugging golf greens at the Twin Lakes Golf Course. Claimant also sold a golf club to the carrier officials. The claimant and his immediate family owned the golf course.

 The labor organization contends that the claimant did not engage in outside employment in violation of Rule 21(b) because he was not "working" at the gold' course but merely moving some machinery on the property which he owned. Because the Claimant was not paid for the work, the organization asserts that the claimant was engaged in activities more akin to a hobby rather than to employment. Furthermore, the claimant argues, by operating the machinery, he was exercising his back pursuant to doctor's orders which he had received on Jbl,y 27, 1977.
claimant was operating machinery for the upkeep of the golf course which was
 beneficial to the claimant's business, The carrier asserts that Rule 21(b)
 speci.ficaU,y provides for dismissal since, an employee who engages in other
 employment, while on a leave of absence, "... automatically severs his relations
 with the company". Lastly, the carrier argues that the purpose of Rule 21(b )
 is to prevent employee from abusing leave of absence privileges, It is in
 equitable for the carrier to maintain employe benefits for a worker who is
 gainfully employed at another endeavor.
was engaged in other employment during a leave of absence. The claimant
 inexplicably anticipated a problem with his wife's health a full month before v
 the leave started. The hearing officer could reasonably conclude that the claimant
 intended to lengthen his vacation to work at the golf course. Similarly the
 carrier correctly argues that the rule against outside employment during a leave
 of absence is to prevent employee from continuing to receive campaMr benefits
 while working at other fobs. Here, the claimant was providing services to his
 own golf business. As an owner, the claimant received the benefit since he did not
 have to hire someone to plug the greens. Next, the plugging of greens can hardly
 be called a~lhobby. Playing golf is a hobby while operating golf green machinery
 is that type of physical work which one normally does for compensation.

 Lastly, the claimant's back injuries are irrelevant to the charge. The back injury occurred more than a month after the claimant requested the leave of absence. The hearing officer could properly interpret all the evidence to support the charge that the claimant was engaged in substantial physical labor.

 Even though the carrier has proven the charge based on substantial evidence in the record, the penalty, in this particular case, was too severe. This Board. recognizes that the carrier has broad latitude in assessing the amount of discipline, but we will intervene and modify the penalty where it appears the punishment was unduly harsh and excessive, Second Division Awards 5674 (IYes); Award 5843 (Dorsey). Rule 21(b) does not require mandatory dismissal for an employe who is charged with a violation. In view of the length of the claimant's service and the peculiar circumstances of this case the claimant will be reinstated with aLt seniority rights unimpaired, but without back pay and without the other monetary relief sought by the claimant.
 Form 1 Award No, $330
 Page 3 Docket No. 8209
 2-L8rN-CM-'80

 However, the claimant should realize that he must comply with the carrier's saoMt rules if he is to continue employment. The leave of absence privileges in Rule 21 cannot be abused. We expect the claimant to conduct himself in an exemplary fashion upon his return to service.

    The claim is sustained only to the extent stated in the findings.


                            NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

        rie Breach - Administrate Assistant


Dated at cago., Illinois this 16th day of Aprils 1980.