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 June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
By letter dated November 13, 1990, the Claimant and Ms. B. K. Hixson ("Hixson"), a Student Electrician, were instructed to appear for a formal investigation. The Carrier in its letter in pertinent part stated: Form 1 Award No. 12626
Mr. Brazleton identified above in charge 3 was the subject of a separate investigation held on November 27, 1990. His case (Docket No. 12565) is also before this Board. The charges noted above which concern Claimant Rice ("Rice") and Hixson were investigated at the same hearing held on November 28, 1990. However, appeals have been separately filed. This case involved Rice's claim.
The transcript of the hearing held on November 28, 1990 is extremely lengthy and touches upon many issues and matters that have questionable relevance to the charges. However, given the nature of the events that led to the charges and because the Hearing Officer clearly made every reasonable effort to afford everyone a fair and full opportunity to present their respective positions, the hearing cannot be fairly faulted.
Certain procedural objections have been raised and, after due consideration, we find no basis to set these proceedings aside on those grounds.
With respect to the merits of charge 1, we find substantial evidence to support the charge. Testimony adduced at the hearing, including that of the primary parties, supports the charge. The Claimant's defense in essence is that, if these actions did occur, they took place during properly authorized breaks and he properly performed all of his assigned duties. However, such a position begs the question. The charge goes to the issue of proper behavior in the workplace. The carrier's position that kissing and embrac- Form 1 Award No. 12626
ing between its employees cannot be condoned on its property is so fundamental that it should not require any explanation.
With respect to the second charge, Rice denies that he was instructed to not fraternize with Hixon while on duty. Supervisor Evans ("Evans") testified that he told both Hixson and Rice to refrain from the identified behavior as noted in the charge. Hixson testified that Evans instructed her not to fraternize with Rice and that she should convey this instruction to Rice. Hixson further testified that she "did mention" the instruction to Rice. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer and, in turn, the Board is confronted with a credibility question. Under the circumstances, the Board finds that it has no basis for not adhering to a basic and well-established principle that the trier of the facts is vested with the exclusive authority to resolve conflicts of testimony.