m




























Form 1 Award No. 9120
 Page 2 Docket No. 8621
 2-SCL-FO-'8Q

 The hearing was reconvened on January 5, 1979, and concluded at that time. Claimant was found guilty as charged and dismissed from Carrier's service. Carrier states that it took this action because Claimant was found guilty of aggravated assault with a gun and because of his past work record.

 The Organization alleges that Claimant was not on the property when the act for which he was arrested took place. Therefore, Carrier had no jurisdiction over him and he should not be disciplined. It also argues `.hat Claimant acted in a reasonable manner. He was attacked first and only responded in kind.

 The facts of the case are not in dispute. Claimant became involved in a fight with a man named Flood. The record reveals that Flood was the instigator and that he came at Claimant with a knife. It also reveals that Claimant fled from the fight, went across the street to his home, got his gun (a 38-caliber revolver), came back, and shot Flood in the abdomen. Claimant received ten years' probation as a result of pleading guilty to a charge of aggravated assault.

 The issue here is does Carrier have the right to dismiss Claimant for a criminal act committed off its property and on Claimant's own time. This Board has been faced with numerous cases involving the same issue involving a variety of crimes. We have come down on both sides of the issue, depending on the severity of the crime, the impact on Carrier's good tee, sad the possible impact on other employer of Claimant's 'presence on the property.

 In the instant case, we think that Claimant's continued presence on Carrier property would pose a threat to his fellow employer and that Carrier would be faced with possible liability if Claimant displayed the same lack of control on the property as he did during the shooting incident.

 By his own admission, Claimant stated that he was mad and that he did not like what Flood had done and said to him. That is why he shot him. Claimant did not shoot in self defense. He did not accidently shoot Flood. He went across the street, got his gun, came back, and shot him because he was angry.

 If Claimant is capable of such behavior (and there is nothing in the record to indicate that he was not in control of all his faculties), Carrier is within its right to remove such an employe from its property. The only way that this Claimant could be put back to work would be on a leniency basis. If leniency is to be granted, it must be done so by Carrier on the property. Carrier obviously considered the incident and Claimant's past record (which, by any standard., was poor) and decided against restoring him to service. Given all the facts in this record, the Board cannot conclude that Carrier's actions were so arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious as to warrant substituting olar judgment for that of Carrier.
 Form 1
 Page 3

 A W A R D
The claim is denied.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By t - _G~Z ~~
 rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Award No. 9120

Docket No. 8621

2-SCL-FO-182

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJIJSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of June, 1982.