(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship ( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express said ( Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Missouri Pacific Railroad Coupsqy

1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement, in particular Rule 18, when it dismissed Mrs. Mary B. Cook from its service April 17, 1974, on so-called charges that were unproven.

 2. Carrier's action was arbitrary, harsh and an abuse of discretion.

 3. Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Mrs. Cook to service with all rights unimpaired and compensate her for all losses sustained, including any Health required to pay due to Carrier's action, and claim is to bear compound interest of one percent per mouth starting with the sixtieth day after date of dismissal and continuing each month thereafter until returned to service.

 OPINION O' BOARD: Following an investigation on the property, by letter
 dated April 17, 1974 Carrier notified Claimant
 Mary B. Cook of her dismissal from service on the ground that she was
 guilty of the charges that she "indulged in conduct unbecoming an employe
 when you entered the office of Mr. E. C. Pidgeon, Purchasing Agent, on
 March 14, 1974, shouting and using profane and obscene language to him con
 cerning a fellow employs and refusing to remain in his office and explain
 your conduct when directed to do so." The dismissal letter also referred
 to claimant's prior record which allegedly disclosed that she had "pre
 viously indulged in a pattern of impolite, vulgar, profane and discourteous
 conduct and displayed an insubordinate and disruptive attitude."

 There is evidence in the record supporting Carrier's determination that at about 9:30 A.M. on March 14, 1974 claiasat engaged in the conduct concerning which Carrier found her guilty. A fellow employs of claimant (General Clerk R. M. Pelch) who was present when the involved incident occurred stated at the investigation that he did not recall claimant using improper language in registering he= complaint about another individual


(V. H. Hems) with Purchasing Agent E. C. Pidgeon, and claimant denied using such language, thus leaving the Purchasing Agent as the sole witness testifying that claimant used language which fairly may be characterized as "profane and obscene". Hut Carrier is not foreclosed from relying on the Purchasing Agent's testimony simply because it is not corroborated by the testimony of another individual.

 We find no merit in other procedural points raised in claimant's behalf, Claimant engaged in conduct on March 14, 1974 which exposed her to disciplinary action. Carrier was entitled to consider her prior record in determining the degree of penalty to be assessed. The record shows claimant had been warned on prior occasions about similar on-the-job misconduct. Carrier did not abuse its discretion in imposing the penalty of dismissal in this instance.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          RATIONAL RAILROAD ADJDBTIDW HOARD

                          BY Order of Third Division


ATTEST: all 41,
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinoia, this 29th day of April 1976.