On August 20, 1992 the Claimant was notified to attend a Formal Investigation considering allegations that he engaged in unbecoming conduct during an altercation with a fellow employee. The Notice specified possible violations of Rules in that the Claimant was allegedly quarrelsome, threatening and hostile. An Investigation was held on August 27, 1992. On September 9, 1992, the Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty as charged and was dismissed from service to the Carrier.
In support of the Claimant, the organization has presented a detailed review of the events and testimony thereto. The Organization maintains that at approximately 11:45 p.m. on August 19, 1992 the Claimant was in the locker room with other employees when Electrician Woods walked by. As part of a gag, the Claimant played along with accepting responsibility for an insult leveled at Mr. Woods by a fellow employee. Shortly thereafter in the Diesel Service Facility lunchroom, the Claimant and Mr. Woods had a physical and verbal exchange. The Organization argues that the altercation was due to Mr. Woods. It further argues through testimony during the Investigation that the Claimant never violated any of the Rules for which he was charged. The thrust of the Organization's argument is that the Claimant was wrongly accused and unjustly suspended. The Organization maintains that the evidence proves that the Claimant neither insulted Electrician Woods, nor engaged in hostile, quarrelsome, threatening or unbecoming behavior. Claimant's behavior was self-defence.
The Board has fully read the Carrier's arguments and the testimony of record. There is sufficient probative evidence that the Claimant violated the Rules as charged. Testimony of Electricians Woods, Knapp, Laborer Seavers and Machinist Hamling do not present the Claimant as an uninvolved and unwitting participant. There is substantial proof that the Claimant made derogatory threats and thereafter followed Mr. Woods outside. Profanity, threatening statements, the opening of a pocket knife and the prior wrestling are well documented. In view of the record before this Board, as shown through the testimony of the participants, there is adequate proof to support the Carrier's findings of guilt with respect to Rules A, B, 1007 and 1008 of the Safety and General Rules for all employees.
Having found the Claimant guilty by substantial probative evidence, the Board lastly considers the discipline imposed by the Carrier. We are most reluctant to set that discipline aside, but are constrained herein to do so. The Board holds for the reasons enunciated in Public Law Board No. 5388, Award 7 that: Form 1 Award No. 12845