(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brother-
 hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Erie Lackawanna Railway Company:

 On behalf of L. C. Barnes for removal of discipline resulting from investigation held on December 28
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant L. C. Barnes entered Carriers service
 in January 1972 and worked as Assistant Signal Main
 tainer. In December 1972 Claimant received a letter reading in pertinent
 part as follows:

Following an investigation held on December 28, 1972 Claimant received on January 8, 1973 a Record of Discipline which read as follows:







Thereafter, by letter of January 26, 1973 Claimant filed the instant claim wherein he stated:



The claim was handled through all appeal procedures on the property without settlement and now comes to our Board for disposition.

 The crux of this dispute is the question of whether Carrier has the right to discipline an employee for conduct away from the place of work. Each of the parties have cited numerous Awards and authority, review of which leads to a qualified "yes" in answer to the central question herein. Carrier has placed great reliance on Award 20703 of the First Division which states in pertinent part as follows:
ployee for conduct away from the place of work has not yet been an
 swered with finality by industrial arbitrators. As a general rule,
 they have held however, that such conduct constitutes just cause for
 dismissal if the employer's reputation may conceivably be damaged by
 the notoriety of the employe's conduct. See Frank Elkouri S Edna A.
 Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, Rev. Ed., Wash. D. C. B. NA
 Incorporated, 1960, pgs. 414-415 and cases cited therein and Orme
 W. Phelps, Discipline and Discharge in the Unionized Plant.
 Berkeley, California University of California Presa, 1959, p. 107
 and cases cited therein." (Emphasis added).

 Our consideration of this matter and especially study of the authorities cited in Award 20703 leads us to conclude respectfully but firmly that the genera The correct standard is that an employe's off duty misconduct may be the subject of employer discipline where that conduct was found to be related to his employment or was found to have an actual or reasonably forseeable adverse effect upon the business. The connection between the facts which o business is affected must be reasonable and discernible. They must be such as could logically be expected to cause some result in the


employer's affairs. In this latter connection mere speculation as to adverse effect upon the business will not suffice. Elkouri 6 Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, 3rd Ed. B.N.A., Inc. Wash. D. C. 1973 pp. 616618. (Emphasis added)

 In applying the foregoing principles to the instant case we must conclude that under different circumstances Claimant's off duty conduct might have presented grounds for discipline but the record in this case is not sufficient to permit our endorsement of Carrier's discipline. There is no showing w connected in any way to Claimant nor that the employer - employee relationship was a matter of publi the six-month time delay between the off duty incident and Carrier's charges against Claimant, during which time Carrier suffered no apparent or proven adverse effect, is additionally probative that no actual or foreseeable causative link existed between the conduct and the employer - employee relationsh
Finally, we are cognizant of Carrier's professed disciplinary policy as stated in the Record of supra and quote again with approval:

 "Discipline is in all cases administered for the education, caution and benefit of yourself and than as a punishment to you and if, with this understanding, you feel that injustice has resulted, you are invited to call on me for further conference."

 In our considered judgement, the discipline imposed in this case by Carrier was unsupported by the record and was punitive, arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordin the removal of the 10 day suspension from Claimant's personnel file.



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

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










ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of November 1975,