(Motherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE (Southern Railway Company

(1) The dismissal of Foreman T. W. Hayes for alleged violation of Rule 'G' was .excessive, nawarranted and an abuse of justice and discretion (Carrier's File 111-89).

 (2) Foremen T. W. Hsyes be reinstated with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and he be compensated for all

 wage loss suffered. " OPINION OF BOARD: This is a Rule "G" dispute in which there is no
 question bat that Claimant vas guilty as charged.
 Further, no issues relating to procedure xne raised; there was a fair
 and impartial imestigntion of the charges. Mw sole question raised
 by the organization relates to the measure of discipline imposed.
 Claimant, a foreman, had been employed by Carrier for thirty three
 years (eighteen as a foreman) and bad an unblemished record prior to
 this incident. Petitioner alleges that the discipline imposed by
 Carrier was excessive.

 Carrier points out that Rule G is the only Carrier working rule which mandates dismissal as a penalty and the rationale for this harsh penalty is obvious in view of the dangers inherent in violations. Carrier argues that particularly for an employs in a supervisory capacity a violation of Rule G is intolerable.

 It is well established that this Board my not substitute its judgment for that of Carrier in discipline cases, particularly with respect to penalty, unless it can be shown that Carrier's actions were arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. Even though were we sitting in judgment we might well have decided on a different penalty, we have no basis for disturbing Carrier's conclusion herein. There is no question but that this Board has repeatedly affirmed Carriers' rights to dismiss employes for Rule G violations. Long years of unblemished service my serve to mitigate a penalty when there are some doubts about guilt (c.f. Award 18036), but such mitigation is not applicable here. The claim must be denied.


        FILPDI&GS: 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 AVustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTKEVT BOARD

                            $· Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~~.
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July 1978.