(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Train Dispatcher R. Rose be restored to Train
 Dispatcher service with all seniority rights and benefits restored.

 OPINION OF BOARD: On July 29, 1976, Claimant was advised of an
 investigation concerning an asserted failure to issue proper train orders. Subsequent to investigation, he was dismissed from service.

 Although the Employes concede that Claimant issued conflicting train orders which authorized opposing movement on the same track, they urge that he had requested time off - two days earlier - because personal problems compelled him to realize that he was "...not in the right frame of mind to be dispatching trains." Further, they assert that he corrected the error when it was brought to his attention and that he reported the incident. Accordingly, it is urged that we restore the Claimant to service.

 Carrier contends that Claimant's plea to this Board is merely a request for leniency; which is not a proper function of this Board. Moreover, Carrier denies that the record substantiates the assertion that it was made aware of any "emotional strain" being suffered by Claimant and that it refused to permit him necessary time off to combat it. Rather, it insists that the record only shows that Claimant asked for some time off, but "let the matter drop" when he was told that there were no relief employes available.

 Finally, Carrier notes that Claimant's past record included a previous dismissal for failure to issue proper train orders. He was reinstated on July 6, 1976 - as a matter of leniency - which reinstatement predated the instant inadvertence to duty by only three weeks.


The Board is not inclined to disturb the discipline. Assuming that the matter before us is not a plea for leniency, it would be necessary for us to determine that the quantum of punishment imposed was arbitrary and/or capricious in order to warrant a restoration to service. Here, the oncoming Dispatcher detected the error and called it to the Claimant's attention. We cannot conclude that the Employe attempted - in a meaningful way - to advise the Carrier that his emotional state precluded him from performing his duties fn a proper fashion.

        FINDLNGS: 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.


                  A W A R D . - - --


        Claim denied. ~~ ·'


                        NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: a ,(/ A)4 a.~
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1979.