(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

1. Carrier violated the terms of the Agreement effective May 15, 1972, particularly Rule 21, when under date of May 7, 1974 ,it notified Mr. Sylvester R. Page, Clerk at Wood Street Station, that he was dismissed from service effective with the termination of his assignment on May 8, 1974, and;

 2. Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. Sylvester R. Page account of such dismissal from May 8, 1974, forward, for all time lost at the rate of his regular assigned position.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Mr. Sylvester Page, was employed as Clerk
 in Carrier's Wood Street Station until he was dis
 missed from service effective May 8, 1974, following investigation on
 May 1, 1974 into charges contained in a letter dated April 19, 1974 as
 follows:

The basic facts of the incident of April 18, 1974 are not in dispute. Claimant had been warned on several prior occasions by supervisors not to leave the property during coffee break and specifically not to go to a restaurant-tavern located across the street from the office. There are no such restrictions on Claimant's or other employee' movements during their lunch periods. At approximately 10:45 A.M. one of Claimant's senior supervisors, Agent C. A. Dudek, saw him returning from the restauranttavern across the street. Dudek


with two of Claimant's lower level supervisors, Assistant Agent J. B. Grim and Chief Clerk W. J. Lacki. Daring the conversation which ensued, Dudek spoke primarily for the management group in reminding Claimant that he had been told not to leave the property and requesting an explanation for the apparent disobedience of those instructions. Claimant acknowledged the prior oral warning but offered the excuse that he had to cash a check for bus fare. Dudek and Grimm both told Claimant that this was not a sufficient reason, that only an emergency would justify leaving, and that Claimant must in any event obtain supervisory permission before leaving the property during coffee break. All participants concur that the conversation was at that point quiet and the Claimant was neither quarrelsome nor argumentative. Thereupon, Mr. Lacki interjected his opinion that cashing a check was not an emergency and if asked by Claimant to do so he would refuse permission to leave the property. At this Claimant got up from his chair, opened the door, stated loudly "I won't put up with this shit" and slammed the door leaving the Agent's office. Less than five minutes later Claimant came back and asked Dudek and Grimm if he could discuss the matter further but was told that the conversation was closed. The next day he received the letter charging him with leaving the premises contrary to supervisory instructions, becoming quarrel profane language.

 Petitioner raised two procedural issues in support of its arguments that Claimant was denied a fair 1) that the Carrier Officer who preferred the charges also assessed the penalty and heard the appeal and 2) the hearing officer refused to sequester witnesses at the hearing. Neither of these contentions is in our judgment meritorious in this case. The first because it was raised de now before our Board but never joined on the property and the second because it bas no Agreement support. We conclude that Claimant was not deprived of the fair and impartial investigation to which he is entitled under Rule, 21.

 Nor do we find persuasive the contention of the Petitioner that Claimant was not culpable of leaving the property without justification or permission contrary to prior instructions. Claimant admitted leaving the property, conceded prior oral warnings and offered inadequate reasons to ,justify his disobedience of reasonable supervisory orders. There can be no question that some discipline was warranted for that offense. The only issue adequately presented by this claim is whether termination from all services is warranted by this record.

 Carrier contends in its Submission that the offense of leaving the property was "the first and most serious part of the charge.' Yet, Agent Dudek testified at the investigative hearing as follow:
                    Award Number 21288' Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-21414


          "Q. Mr. Dudek, as I stated in questioning Mr. Grim, had Mr. Page at the time he was instructed by Mr. Grim to request permission, etc., insofar as conducting himself, would you have felt this would have been the end of the issue, and had the procedures been complied with by Mr. Page in the future, this would have been the end of the issue?


          A. Based on Mr. Page's behavior at the time we were discussing his leaving the property, I would hav that time, had he acted in a manner he should have, I would have then asked personally that Mr. Slattery and Mr. Pbdgoraki, who are on the premises,-to then come into my Office. We would have discussed what Mr. Page had done, I would have again cautioned Mr. Page in front of them and supported it with a letter, and if he did, in any future time, leave the prises without authorization, we would then hold an investigation."


It is apparent to us that absent the charges of unruly and quarrelsome behavior and profane and boisterous language the penalty would have not been termination but rather a written reprimand. The issue narrows to whether there is sufficient record evidence that Claimant was abusive, quarrelsome, boisterous and profane? Carrier argues that the record shows that Claimant was "recalcitrant, extremely careless, insubordinate and resentful. of authority." After careful consideration of the record we cannot share this extreme view. Surely, Claimant was at fault for raising the level of his voice and lowering the level of the conversation. And his actions in slamming the door and storming out cannot be condoned. But we do not view his angry retreat as "quarrelsome" or "abusive".' As for his choice of expletive, it is not polite or pleasant talk but the word at issue is not so singularly shocking to men of normal experience as to warrant the description "profane". Certainly that particular descriptive expression may fairly be encompassed in the colorful lexicon of shop language and, perhaps unfortunately, even as part of the everyday vernacular. We cannot find justification for discharge in the single utterance of a word heard almost nightly on prime time television shows.

 Finally, Carrier urges that Claimant's record was "deplorable" and "atrocious", that he has been frequently disciplined for essentially the same offenses as herein and that he is incorrigible and/or unable to conform his conduct to acceptable standards. However, we search the record in vain to find substantiation of these serious charges. The record does show, however, that Claimant returned almost immediately after his outburst to resume the discussion but was denied further conversation by his supervisor. We view the evidence as insufficient to establish that progressive discipline short of dismissal would be a futile gesture by Carrier.
                    Award Number 21288 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-21414


Claimant was culpable of leaving the property without authorization contrary to instructions and of as disrespect to superiors, none of which can be condoned or exonerated. But the penalty of dismissal is inordinately and unreasonably excessive under all of the circumstances. We shall order his reinstatement but he is awarded no compensation for time lost.

        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 violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained only to the extent indicated in the Opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMCRT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: aal&te

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of November 1976.