( Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

1. The Carrier violated the provisions of the March 3, 1970 Rules Agreement by discharging Mrs. J. Gloria J. Hankins, Correction Clerk, Freight Accounting, St. Paul, Minnesota, from the service of the Company, effective March 17, 1972; and,

 2. The Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Mrs. J. Gloria J. Hankins into the service of the Company with seniority and other rights unimpaired.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This is an appeal from Claimant's dismissal from
 Carrier's service, effective March 17, 1972. The dismissal was made after a hearing and findings that Claimant was in possession of a loaded, 22 calibre revolver while on duty in violation of Rule 708 of Carrier's Safe


The hearing record shows that Claimant admitted possession of the loaded revolver while on duty; that two co-employes testified to their seeing the revolver on Claimant's desk; and that Carrier's security officer saw the revolver, fully loaded with six cartridges, when it was handed to him by Claimant.- Thus, there is no doubt that Carrier's evidence proved the gravamen of the charge. Claimant's defense was one of extenuating circ her attorney testified to a highly troubled domestic history which involved her being physically ass her personal safety and that of her children. Attempts to obtain protection from law enforcement authorities had been unavailing and, in addition, Claimant had received reports while on Car-_ier's


premises which caused her to feel fearful for her safety. Because of these fears, and her need for protection, the Claimant decided on a policy of self-protection by means of the revolver. She did not have a permit for the revolver from the State in which the herein incident occurred. However, she stated that she had a permit from a different State and never considered the permit as being limited to the boundaries of such State.

 The Petitioner argues that, in view of the extenuating circumstances shown on Claimant's behalf, the extreme penalty of dismissal was unreasonable and unfair. More specifically, the Petitioner asserts that Claimant's serious domestic troubles led her to take an irrational action for which she should not be held responsible.

 The record shows that Carrier gave consideration to these extenuating circumstances and found them wanting. We shall not disagree. Claimant's plight arouses u However, compassion for a single employee cannot be allowed to transcend the rights of other employe in Claimant's possession posed a serious risk of injury to all employees within its firing range. An Claimant, from injury due to the misuse of firearms on Carrier's premises. In the instant dispute the Carrier's action was taken to carry out that obligation and, on the whole record, we find no basis for saying that Carrier's action was unreasonable or arbitrary. Accordingly, we shall deny the




That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes wit the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and









ATTEST:

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of March 1974.

 .asa6~_~