At the time of incident in question, Claimant was employed as a Shop Electrician in Carrier's Mechanical Facility at Alliance, Nebraska. On April 3, 1992, Claimant received a Notice from the Carrier, which read in pertinent part:

"Attend investigation in the Roby Conference Room, Alliance Mechanical Facility, Alliance, Nebraska on Thursday, April 9, 1992, at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility, if any, in connection with your alleged quarrelsome and disorderly conduct at approximately 1:30 p.m., March 24, 1992, and 1:20 p.m. on March 26, 1992. This incident occurred in the Claims Department at 111 West 1st, Alliance, Nebraska while you were assigned as an Electrician at the Alliance Diesel Shop, Alliance, Nebraska."

The Investigation was ultimately held on April 23, 1992. Following the Investigation, Claimant was notified on May 12, 1992, that an "entry of censure" was being placed on his personnel record and he was suspended from service for fifteen days. The discipline was timely appealed and processed in the usual manner including conference between the parties on December 8, 1992, after which the matter remained in dispute.

At the outset, the organization maintains that Carrier failed to afford a fair and unbiased Hearing. A careful reading of the transcript fails to confirm the Organization's procedural objection. Examples of examination by the Hearing Officer, which the organization characterizes as prejudicial, are little more than brief clarification questions following up on lengthy answers by various witnesses.

With respect to the merits of the case, a review of the transcript establishes persuasively that Claimant was at least verbally belligerent to, if not actually physically threatening towards, Carrier's officers. His behavior is particularly inappropriate in the circumstances, since he was seeking payment for a medical claim, and it is apparent that Carrier Claim Agents were attempting to accommodate his request beyond the normal routine of their jobs. Rather than make Claimant wait for his reimbursement, Carrier was willing to advance him the money on the day he appeared, requiring only that he first complete the necessary paperwork and claims interview.

In hopes of excusing Claimant's behavior, the Organization argued that he was provoked into his loud behavior by Carrier employees. However, there is no support on the record for that

credible, and supports Carrier's position that Claimant's outburst was more in the nature of a temper tantrum than a response to provocation. Claimant's testimony, on the other hand, is contradictory, and a careful reading of that testimony reveals that he initially approached the Claims Department with what can most charitably be described as a "chip on his shoulder."

In light of the evidence on the record, we do not find that Carrier's assessment of a fifteen day suspension was unreasonable. Claimant's behavior was inappropriate in the circumstances and he was properly and fairly disciplined.

A W A R D