(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Nam~lers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Norfolk and Western Railway Company

(1) Carrier violated the provisions of Rule 27 of the Master Agreement effective April 1, 1973, rhea an October 31, 1974, it arbitrarily and capriciously dismissed Clerk H. L. Bowman, Detroit, Michigan, from the service of the Carrier based on unproven and questionable charges.

 (2) Carrier shall now return Claimant to service of the Carrier with an rights end privileges unimpaired.

(4) Carrier will be required to pay interest on an time lost at the rate of l% compounded miuntbly.

Petitioner first alleges that Claimant vas not afforded a fair and impartial hearing because the hearing officer limited the testimoapr of certain witnesses to the time of the critical incident, wbile permitting other witnesses to stray from that refused to permit testimony relating to events after the incident under investigation, it is apparen might have provided background relevant to the disputed incident. A careful study of the transcript, however, indicates that although the hearing officer was incorrect in his restrictions of evidence covering the period prior to the event, this error did not significantly effect Claimant's rights to a fair trial; the testimony barred was at best designed to show a pattern of prior "ran-ins" and to defend Claimant's character. Neither of the areas could have directly had a bearing an the conduct on the morning in question (see Award 20227).

 The transcript of the investigation reveals that the Supervisor in the dispute did swear while giving instructions to Claimant. The relatively mild expletive, though improper, was far from a provocation even remotely


sufficient to justify Claimant's subsequent conduct. Since we cannot pass on credibility issues and there was a clear-cut admission by Claimant of at least part of the allegedly improper language and conduct, it is evident that the testimony adduced at the investigation supported Carrier's conclusion of Claimant's guilt. Insubordination and threats are serious in this industry and certainly justify discipline. In this czse we have no basis upon which to question the measure of discipline imposed.

        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 Employee 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 not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: (Ilt/r1I lAlsoa,0,

        Wcative Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of July 1976.