Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9702
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9120
2-SCL-SM-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.
( Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
Parties to Dispute:
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:














Findings:


the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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



Claimant, L. E. McCauley, received notice dated October 16, 1979 to attend investigation on October 23, 1979. He was charged with violation of that part of Rule 12 of Carrier's Mechanical Department Rules and Regulations which reads, in pertinent part: "Vicious, or uncivil conduct, insubordination ... will subject the offender to summary dismissal". Claimant was also advised by this same notice that his personal record would be reviewed at the conclusion of the investigate On December 14, 1979 Claimant was advised that he had been found guilty as charged and that he was discharged from Carrier's service.
Form 1
Page 2

Award No. 9702
Locket No. 9120
2-SCL-SM-183 1400

A review of the record shows sufficient substantial evidence to warrant conclusion that Claimant is guilty as charged. Substantial evidence has been defined as such "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion". Both Car Foreman Spivey and Machinist Hart testified at the hearing that Claimant directed verbal threats at Foreman Spivey. Since Claimant categorically denies this the Board is confronted with direct conflict of evidence. The Board has ruled in numerous past Awards, however, that it will not resolve conflicts of evidence nor credibility issues if there is substantial evidence in the record which supports the action of the Carrier (2nd Division Awards 1809, 6195 and 6372 inter alia).

The only issue to be resolved by this Board, therefore, is whether the penalty imposed by the Carrier was reasonable. This Board has underlined in prior Awards that the role of discipline is not only punitive but that it should also provide corrective and training measures for employes (2nd Division Award 6485; Third Division Awards 5372 and 19037 inter alia). The Carrier may properly weigh a Claimants work history to determine the quantum of discipline (Second Division Awards 6632 and 8527). A review of Claimants work record shows a number of letters of reprimand during his five (5) year tenure with the carrier,

although he had never engaged in behavior reprehensible enough to merit a suspension prior to the incident under consideration in the instant case. The Board does not find it unreasonable, therefore, by way of the application of the principle of progressive discipline, to direct reinstatement of the Claimant on a last chance basis to his prior position with seniority and other rights unimpaired but without back pay or other monetary benefits for tune lost while out of service.

A W A R D

Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: w4ex-~



Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of October 1983.

Iwo