(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc.

1. Carrier violated the Working Agreement with an effective date of March 3, 1970 between the parties hereto, when on the seventh day of February, 1974, it suspended PBX Extra List, Chicago Regional Office Building, Chicago, Illinois.

 2. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties hereto when on March 10, 1974, it discharged Ms. Jacqueline Haynes.

 3. Carrier shall restore Ma. Jacqueline Haynes to service with seniority rights unimpaired, showing exoneration, including her right to return to her former status and all lose of compensation incurred, including any loss suffered by her and her dependents as a result of the effect of her dismissal upon Group Policy Contract GA-23000 at the present time or in the future.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On February 6, 1974, Claimant Haynes and Ms. Jasos en
 gaged in a verbal dispute. When ordered to leave the
 telephone room by the Chief Telephone Operator, Haynes and Jasos continued
 their dispute, outside of the building, and a physical altercation ensued.
 On the following day, Claimant was notified to attend an investigation on a
 charge of conduct unbecoming an employe, and absenting herself from her tele
 phone exchange operator duties.

Claimant asserts that dismissal was not justified, and her investigation was not conducted in a
The record shows that certain of the employee in the telephone room were engaged in a discussion, on the date in question, as to the procedures for "taking breaks." The discussion erupted into a loud yelling confrontation between Claimant and Jasos, to the point that the Chief Operator told both participants to leave the room so that the other operators could continue to perform their duties. After some delay, during which the heated conversation continued, the two employes went outside of the building and continued the disagreement, which resul


"vulgar" epithets) and it became necessary that other individuals physically restrained the combatants from continuing the "brawl."

 Jasos concedes that there was a loud verbal confrontation and that she suggested that she and Claimant "go outside" to settle the matter. Moreover, she stated that onc nearby alley, rather than continue the matter in front of the building and "make a big scene." She denies that it was ever her intention to invoke, or engage in, a physical battle, but that Claimant jumped her from behind, at which time she had no alternative but to defend herself.

 Claimant states that she did not engage in a verbal dispute with Jasos on the day in question, other than to tell her to "go to Hell" in a moderate voice. Moreover, she had no idea as to why Jasos suggested that they leave the building in order to settle differences. She has no recollection of the Chief Operator asking her to leave the room, but she did depart when Jasos said she was going to "...knock the hell out of me", to which she replied, "O. K., let's do it."

 Claimant seems to concede that she made the first physical contact when she "grabbed" Jasos by the shoulders, but she does not recall why she grabbed her: She also concedes that she kicked at Jasos after the two were separated.

 One witness indicated that both participants employed profanity, and they both indicated that a physical altercation was in the offing when they departed the telephone room.

 We have considered Claimant's insistence that Carrier has violated her rights in the handling of this matter. She states that the charges were misleading and did not properly appraise her of the nature of the accusations against her. The charge spoke in terms of conduct unbecoming an employe, but at the investigation - and in subsequent steps - Carrier placed certain reliances upon specific rules. But, as we read those rules, they are directly related to employe conduct. Clearly, the record fails to disclose that Claimant was misled- and thereby preclud in any manner, prejudiced.

 We have also considered the fact that the individual who served as accuser and as a witness also participated in the early stages of the appellate procedure. We freely concede that such a procedure could, under a given set of circumstances, operate to the substantial prejudice of a Claimant. However, based upon this record, and the admissions of guilt contained therein, any suggestion of prejudicial
Finally, we consider the merits of the dispute. It is suggested that Carrier has failed to satisfy the burden of proving which participant was the motivating factor in the events which resulted in the physical altercation, ant.


accordingly, the disciplinary action should be set aside. Without unduly burdening this document with a lengthy recitation of the pertinent evidence of record, we are inclined to find that the actions of both employes showed a willingness to engage in rather severe misconduct which was clearly contrary to the best interests of their employer. In every instance such as the one here under review, it is safe to say that one of the parties ignited the spark. But, it is equally safe to state that both parties had ample opportunity to restore a sense of propriety to the matter before it became totally uncontrollable.

 This record leaves no doubt that both Claimant and Jasos were committed to settle their differen telephone room. Moreover, we feel that the record contains sufficient evidence, including Claimant's of discipline was not excessive.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of 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; ~i~
 Executive Secretary

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