(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DI3PVfE:



1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on February 11, 1974, they arbitrarily and capriciously assessed Clerk M. J. Sinwald thirty (30) days actual suspension.

 2. Carrier's action was unust, unreasonable and an abuse of Carrier's discretion. The discipline was assessed without any proof whatever of the charges made.
 3. Carrier shall now compensate M. J. Sinrald for each day held out of service, with seniority and all other rights unimpaired.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was suspended for thirty (30) days after an
 investigation in which Carrier determined that he had
 been, as charged, guilty of taking part in an altercation. The Board in a
 very large number of cases has refused to support discipline which a Carrier
 has administered when its review of the transcript of the investigation has
 shown that Carrier acted without basing its decision upon substantial evi
 dence in the record. The transcript of the investigation in this case .hors
 that Carrier did not have substantial evidence upon which to base a finding
 that the Claimant had taken part in an altercation. Both Claimant and a
 fellow employe testified that the fellow employe was inured in an unfortunate
 accident. A third employe was present and testified that Claimant and the
 inured employe were engaged in a discussion of politics. Carrier based its
 finding that Claimant had assaulted his fellow employe largely on testimony
 by the person just referred to which indicated that after the occurrence the
 inured employe pointed to a paperweight and to the Claimant. From that
 testimony Carrier deduced that Claimant had thrown the paperweight, rather
 than having dropped it as both the Claimant and the inured employe testified.
 Carrier's inference may be a permissible inference, but it does not rise
 above inference, and certainly is not substantial evidence that Claimant threw
 the paperweight. Apparently Carrier recognized that fact and refrained from
 either charging, or finding, that Claimant had done that deed. However, in
 its written presentation to the Board Carrier has argued vigorously that Claim
 ant did engage in that course of conduct. The record is devoid of other


conduct which would support the finding that Claimant had been engaged in an altercation, except for testimony which indicated that Claimant and the inured employe had been aske Certainly, Carrier did not intend to discipline Claimant for loud talk, or it would have specified that offense in the notice of the investigation and in its findings following the investigation. What Carrier has done is to discipline Claimant for an offense that it suspects, but did not prove, that he committed. Under all of the circumstances the Hoard must sustain the claim.

        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 Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          RATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Agp',Awa AL

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