(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

(1) The dismissal of Assistant Track Foreman A. C. Bellinger was without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of charges other than that placed against him (System File BALT-W-2042-MG-1719).

 (2) The claimant shall be reinstated to service with seniority unimpaired."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant had about four years service as Assistant Track
 Foreman at the time of the incident which has culminated before this Board. The record indicates he was removed from service after a hearing which concluded that he was guilty of conduct unbecoming an employe, such action occurring on July 28, 1976. On'that date the Claimant was assisting his crew in loading "rail anchors" (or "anti-creepers") on the rear of a truck. The Claimant initially had disdained from doing so, contending his assistance was not necessary and or that he was not feeling well. He was ordered to do so by his superior (the crew for~an). As the loading of the anchors was about to conclude, the Claimant propelled one of the anchors to the other side of the truck, at such a velocity that it broke a slat and glanced in the direction of the foreman. The Claimant thereafter proceeded to the cab of the truck, opened it, got in and slammed the door. He left the premises shortly thereafter.

 The Organization contends certain procedural errors by the Carrier and Hearing Officer which, upon review of the record, are considered to be without merit. Particular among them was failure of the Claimant to receive written notice of the hearing. That the Claimant was aware of the hearing was borne out by his presence; additionally, a certified letter was sent the Claimant, but reurned marked "moved left no address." The Carrier is not obliged to do more than attempt hconstructive notice" through the be
While the Carrier's disciplinary action must, in this instance, be predicated to an extent upon conjecture, i.e. was the Claimant's


actions before and after "the incident" in concert with the intent attributed to him in the act itself, we find no fault with its conclusions. We surmise that the Claimant's ill-conceived act may have been out of pique and possibly at a time when he might have not been at the height of health, but it is altogether reasonable to expect a better measure of restraint and judgment, of one who is required to lead or direct others, than was demonstrated.

 Nonetheless, we conclude that the desired result will be accomplished here by returning the Claimant to service, without back pay, but with his seniority unimpaired. We add the condition that this is a "last chance" opportunity for the Claimant to demonstrate his worth as an employe.

        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 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 to the extent set forth in the Firms.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMM HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: /~, ~~
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of September 1979.