(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond ( and John H. McArthur, Trustees of ( the Property of Penn Central Transportation ( Company, Debtor

(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective February 1, 1968, particularly Rule 6-A- days suspension on Edward Fransko, Assistant Crew Dispatcher, Conway, Pennsylvania.

 (b) Claimant Edward Fransko's record be cleared of the charges brought against him on September 5, 1973.

 (c) Claimant Edward Fransko be compensated for wage loss sustained during the period out of serv




Subsequent to investigation, Claimant was assessed a thirty (30) day suspension from service (with time held out of service to apply), however, he was returned to se matter of "leniency") and the unserved portion was held in abeyance, to be served only if he committed an offense for which discipline was imposed.

 We do not concur with Claimant's assertion that the Carrier failed to describe the "exact offense", nor do we agree that the lack of use of profanity has a bearing on the charge of "abusive language". Regardless of dictionary definitions, in the context of labor-management disputes, an employe may be considered to be abusive without regard to use of profanity.


At the investigation, Claimant made inquiry concerning his being held out of service pending the investigation; which inquiry was answered. In any event, that matter has not been pursued to this Hoard.

 Carrier's contentions of wrong doing are expressed by the testimony of the Trainmaster:

        "A. So about fifteen minutes later Mr. Fransko came up.

        I was on the phone at the time and he stood by my desk.

        When I got off the phone I got up and I started to tell

        him that when I call down there I didn't want him to be

        telling me that he is too busy to talk to me, and before

        I could get out what I wanted to tell him, he was holler

        ing at me at the same time telling me that when he's

        busy he don't have to talk to me and he'll hang up on me

        anytime he wants to and I was telling him 'Hey, when I

        tell you that you're not going to hang up on me and I

        want to talk to you, that is what you're going to do or

        you're going to come off the job.' And he told me that

        he didn't care if I gave him 60 days off and he didn't

        need to work and said he'd still bang up on me any time

        that he wanted to, so then I told him he was out of serv

        ice. Then Mr. Fransko started down the steps, he got

        half-way down and I told him to come back, I wasn't

        finished with him, I wanted to give him an out-of-service

        notice the way it should be done, on paper, and he told

        me that he was out of service and he didn't have to talk

        to me and he walked out the door.


          Q. Mr. Bartoletti, this conversation that transpired between you and Mr. Fransko, were you alone with Mr. Franeko in your office?

        A. No sir, Mr. Dripps was the second trick Power Desk Yardmaster."


          Claimant's version is as follows:


          "A. Yes sir. Mr. Bartoletti called me on the phone and was asking 'where are the jitney drivers that he needed one to run bills from the IBM room to #4 hump. I told Mr. Bartoletti that I had no jitneys available and while we were talking two jitney drivers came in the room. I started to tell Mr. Bartoletti 'Waits mirnite, I think there is a jitney driver here now.' Before I could finish this all I said was 'Wait a minute, I'--- and Mr. Bartoletti screamed at me over the phone telling me wait a minute, who in the hell do you think you are'.

                  Award Number 21233 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-21029


          "At this point him and I got into an argument over the way he was screaming at me over the phone. So I hung up on Mr. Bartoletti, At the same time Mr. D. P. DeLauter walked into the crew room and was hollerin about the two jitney drivers that had just walked in. When I told Mr. D. P. DeLauter that they had just come in he turned around-and started for the IBM room, at the same time calling me a 'little bastard', which I don't think is proper for a supervisor of the Penn Central to say to another employee. I have witnesses to this.


          Q. Mr. Fransko, is that the extent of the conversation you had with Mr. Bartoletti?

          A. No sir, it was not. Mr. Bartoletti ordered me up to the Ivory Tower, which I immediately done. It wasn't 15 or 20 minutes, it was more like 5 minutes. When I arrived up in the Ivory Tower Mr. Bartoletti was talking on the telephone and telling someone that nobody is ever going to hang up on him. After he was done he proceeded to scream and holler like a maniac and I told him that any time anyone screams and curses over the phone at me that I would hang up on them. He in turn said that he was going to have me in for a trial and I did tell Mr. Bartoletti I didn't care if he did give me 60 days because I had done nothing wrong. He kept on scre and hollering and I told him that I didn't have to take this from him over the phone or up in the office, and that I would hang up on him again if he screamed and cursed and hollered at me over the phone. Mr. Bartoletti then told me that I was out of service. I, in turn, left and went home. That is all I have to say."


Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the Yardmaster's testimony confirms that of the Trainmaster and we have noted that he testified that Claimant said "I
It is well established that this Board is not constituted to resolve conflicts of evidence. We find finding of guilt and no showing of arbitrary or capricious conduct.

 Even considering Claimant's long service and prior good record, we cannot conclude that the quantum of discipline is excessive.

 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;

                    Award Number 21233 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-21029


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: (/V (/~
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of September 1976.