Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9703
SECOND DIVISION Locket No. 9123
2-BRCofC-MA-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.

( International Association of Machinists
( and Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( The Belt Railway Company of Chicago

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 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, Michael T. Olsen,(*) was employed as a machinist's helper when he received notice dated December 2, 1979 to appear for a formal hearing. He was charged with allegedly assaulting and injuring a fellow employe on that same date at about 4:20 A.M. in the fuel shanty at Carrier's Clearing Locmotive Service Track while he was working overtime on regular assignment. After the investigative hearing was held on December 6, 1979 Claimant received notice that his services with the Carrier were terminated, effective December 7, 1979 for violation of Rule J of the Carrier Book of Rules. Rule J reads as follows:





(*) Claimant's name is spelled variously Michael T. Olsen and Michael T. Olson in the record before the Board.
Form 1 Award No. 9703
Page 2 Docket No. 9123
2-BRCofC-MA-'83
Playing practical jokes, scuffling, wrestling, or fighting while on
duty or on company property, as well as throwing of tools or materials
is prohibited.

A review of the record shows that Claimant's rights were not abrogated by the manner in which the investigation was conducted, nor by the way the subsequent appeal process was handled.

On merits the record documents overwhelming substantial evidence, including Claimants own testimony, to warrant support for Carriers finding that Claimant was guilty as charged. Substantial evidence has been defined as such "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion". Numerous prior Awards of this Board, including Third Division Awards 8481 and 22616 inter alia also set precedent for discharge in cases such as the instant one. Further, it is well established that the Board will not substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier in discipline cases when substantial evidence is present if no other extenuating circumstances exist.








Attest: ,
Nancy J. ev -Executive Secretary

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