( Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

1. Carrier's action in the dismissal from service of Mr. Raymond E. Eads, Shiller Park, Illinois was unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and unjust.

 2. Mr. Raymond E. Eads shall have his record cleared of any and all charges that may have been placed against him because of this case.

 3. Mr. Raymond E. Eads shall now be reinstated to the service of the Carrier with seniority and other rights unimpaired. I
 4. Mr. Raymond E. Eads shall now be compensated for all wages and other losses sustained account this unwarranted dismissal.

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant was first employed by Carrier as a relief
 Yard Clerk in the summer of 1971, again in the summer of 1972, and still again in the late spring of 1973, establishing a seniority dating of May 29, 1973 the position of Regular Relief Clerk No. 4, working from 4:00 FM to 12:00 midnight on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM on Fridays and Saturdays, with assigned rest days of Sundays and Mondays.

 On April 19, 1974 a formal investigation was held to ascertain Claimant's role in connection with an alleged physical altercation between himself and a female co-worker while on duty the night of March 2, 1974. As a result of this investigation, Claimant was notified by Carrier on April 25, 1974, that he was dismissed for his "improper and inexcusable conduct' toward a co-worker.

 The scope of our review in discipline is limited. In the absence of discrimination, unfairness, or capricious and arbitrary action by the Carrier, we do not weigh the evidence to ascertain if our decision would be


.-he same as that reached by the Carrier. The policy of this Hoard in such a case is to examine the record to determine whether the decision of the Carrier is supported by substantial evidence (Award 18551).
Claimant argues that the record is replete with "disputed and refuted evidence" so that "the alleged evidence could not, by the remotest stretch of the imagination, be considered as competent or substantial."

 In examining the record as a whole, the Hoard does find much conflicting testimony among the witnesses as to whether or not vulgar language was used by Claimant toward his female co-worker. There is also much contradiction among the witnesses as to exact what physical actions or abuse Claimant took against his co-worker.
However, a close reading of the record reveals that Claimant himself admits,

          "...I grabbed her by the shoulders,...shook her a little bit. She didn't seem too terribly upset ... . I...shook her hand and she started crying. Now I thought maybe I shook her hand a little too hard ... . She immediately sped to the washroom. Maybe I did hurt her ... . So I went in and I said, 'Hey, did I hurt you?'... As I stated in the previous statement, she went into the washroom sobbing. At that minute I thought she might have been hurt . ...I went in there . ...I said, 'Hey, did I hurt you? I'm sorry if I hurt you. I didn't mean to squeeze your hand so tight. I was ,just trying to be friendly.' And she just kept on sobbing. Jimmy said we'd better leave. We shouldn't be in the bathroom . ...And the next day as Vicki will testify, she left without me being able to apologize because I thought I hurt her head . ...Mr. Taylor called me over the phone ... . And then I said, 'Oh, my God,'for shaking her like that ... ." (Tr., pp. 18-20)


James Tubbs, Inbound Receiving Clerk No. 2, who was present at the time of the above incident, testified:

          Q. Did you see Mr. Eads force Ms. Shefsky onto the table?

          A. He didn't force her on the table.

          Q. Did you see Mr. Eads slap her or rough her up any?

          A. He didn't slap her, and I don't think he actually

          roughed her up.

          Q. Hut did he grab hold of her?

          A. Yes, in his usual manner. He usually does this to

          other women employees. It is his personal manner;

          it is his way.

            Award Number 21110 Page 3

            Docket Number CL-21210


    Q. Did Mr. Eads follow Ms. Shefsky into the toilet, the ladies' washroom?

    A. Only after he found out that he had hurt her. He wanted to apologize.


              x ~t it


    Q. Did you follow Mr. Eads and Me. Shefsky into the washroom?

A. Yes, I did.
 Q. Why did you do that?
    A. I didn't think it was a good thing for Ray to go in there because he could get in trouble, I thought. It was for Ray's benefit actually.


              ~r ~r x


Q. Can you state what the conversation was about?
 A. I can corroborate Ms. Shefsky's story . ...I
 could see Ray walk in. Vicki came up to here
 with an advance list of the train. All of a
 sudden Ray comes in and Vicki was directly behind
 me . ...Ray came up and he grabbed her arm. She
 replied, "Oh. Ray," you know and she did say he
 seemed drunk, which I don't know if he was. He
 was laughing at first, and all of a sudden she
 started crying. I said, "Hold on, Ray. I think
 you are hurting her." So he stopped. Then he
 went and sat down. Then he came and asked me
 where did she go. "Well," I said, "I think you
 hurt her and she's in the bathroom. He went in
 there. So I followed and I said, "Ray, you'd
 better get out of here. It doesn't look too good."
 And then Wayne King was upstairs calling a crew.
 He came down and I said, "Wayne, I think Ray may
 have hurt Vicki a little. I think you had better
 talk to her." So Wayne goes there and talks to
 her. On the advice of Wayne, I told Vicki she
 had better go home because I didn't think she was
 in a condition because she was crying and kind of
 nervous. I guess she figured that Ray was going
 to hurt her. The same night I also advised Vicki
 if she were going to call. an investigation she
 better do it. It could happen again, I don't know.
 I said that Ray maybe is a little sick or something.
 Hut I did advise her as to the fact. (Tr. pp. 8-10)
                      Award Number 21110 Page 4

                      Docket Number CL-21210


The foregoing testimony clearly establishes that Claimant did more than "shake hands in a.friendly manner" with Vicki Shefsky.

 Furthermore, L. A. Taylor, Manager of Terminal Services, testified that in a telephone conversat 1974, Claimant stated:

          "I don't think I've done anything so wrong. If making a pass at a girl is so bad, every male in this office that night should be investigated." (Tr, p. 5)


In addition, Mr. Taylor testified that in a conversation he had with James Tubbs regarding the incident of'March 2, Tubbs stated that Claimant had threatened him (Tubbs):

          "I (Taylor) said, 'Jim, did he threaten you?' He (Tubbs) said, 'Sure he did. I'm afraid of that mother. I (Tubbs) told him (Fads) I know that group he hangs around with. They call themselves the Hell's something or other. I've seen them and Ray Together. They are a bad bunch. I stopped the whole thing you know. He (Ends) told me (Tubbs),- "I'll get you, you mother xxxxxx, my brother and I will get you. He is an enforcer."" (Tr. p. 12)


Janet Plier, Assistant Agent, testified that on the same day (April 4) that Vicki and Mr. Taylor had their meeting about the incident on March 2, James Tubbs told her that Claimant had hit Vicki, although Tubbs did not specify when this happened. (Tr. p. 11)

 while it is true that Tubbs at the hearing denied he made the above statements attributed to him by Taylor and Plier, and the stories told by Shefsky and Claimant differ markedly, nevertheless, it has long been held by this Board that its function does not extend to disturbing resolutions of questions of credibility when witnesses offer varying accounts at an investigation. Carrier chose to credit Shefsky's version of the incident, as well as the testimony of Taylor and Plier. Moreover, Shefsky's version was, to some extent, confirmed by Tubbs and even Claimant himself. We, therefore, that the credibility determination was arbitrary and/or capricious. Accordingly, we find that Carrie Shefsky.
              Award Number 21110 Page 5

              Docket Number CL-21210


Such a physical altercation clearly violated Carrier's Safety Rule ;..r Station Employes and Ore Dock Employes which reads in pertinent part:

          "Employer will not be retained in the service who are careless in the safety of others, insubordinate, dishonest, immoral, quarrelsome, or otherwise vicio ... ."


Even in the absence of Rule M, it is inherent in the work relationship that personnel must conform t accepted standards of reasonable conduct while on the job. Published rules and. regulations are not necessary to Worm an employe that misconduct such as fighting, altercations, and foul or obscene language may subject him to discipline or discharge. A railroad yard office is a place for the performanee of work. While it is it a place for conduct associated with a waterfront bar nor a relocated "Peyton Place". Uncontrolled, irresponsible outbursts aocompanied by physical or verbal assault caaoqt be tolerated.

 Claimant testified that Vicki Shefsky 'bras snivelling about her job" (Tr. p. 18), and "started her massive complaints" (Tr. p. 19), It was then ;that he "grabbed her by the shoulders ...(and) shook her a little bit." (Tr. p. 19). Such behavior is not excusable because the Claimant was in an agitated emotional state brought on by Shefsky's alleged "snivelling" and '!massive complaintq", nor because Claimant may have been "intoxicated" and/or "sick" from allegedly drinking a gallon of wine before coming on duty. When an employe lacks the emotional stability and rational judgment to restrain himself from physical altercations, he also lacks the minion qualifications to be retained as a member of the work force.

 The precedent is well established that this Board should not substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier in discipline cases where it has produced substantial evidence that the offense charged was committed. While the administratio haphazard or capricious, it is clear that the imposition of discipline is within managerial discretion.

 The record is conclusive that Claimant was guilty of conduct that simply cannot be condoned. We therefore have no alternative but to deny the claim.
 Award Number 21110
 Docket Number CL-21210

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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 21, 1934;

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


Page 6

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

1416449,0*4


        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEW BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 day of June-1976.