( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

(1) Carrier violated the Rules Agreement between the parties; including but not limited to Rules 26, 27 and 33 of DP-451 when on February 1, 1978 it arbitrarily and capriciously discharged Mr. A. V. Carlson, Jr., Clerk, Freight Claims, General Office, Denison, Texas, from its service without just and sufficient cause and did not give him a precise reason for his discharge.

 (2) Carrier shall compensate Claimant for all time lost during the period of February 2 through March 3, 1978, when his dismissal was changed to a thirty (3 his.personal records,of the charges and discipline assessed.

 OPINION OF BOARD: A. V. Carlson, Jr., Clerk, Freight Claims,
 General Office, was suspended for thirty days from February 2 - March 3, 1978 for the use of profanity on February 1, 1978. Carlson was charged with violating Carrier's general rules, Circular No. DP-2 Paragraph C which requires courteous deportment and Paragraph D which states, "Employes must not be...(5) Immoral... (6) Quarrelsome, or otherwise vicious."

 Carrier argues that Carl son is guilty as charged. It maintains that Carlson admitted saying, "O two previous warnings against profanity, a thirty (30) day suspension is appropriate.

 The Organization-insists that Carrier did not provide a fair and impartial hearing on the property. The Organization argues that the bias exhibited by the conducting officer, M. D. Woodroff, warrants dismissal of the charges.
 i

 Award Number 22681 Page 2
 Docket Number CL-22792

 As to the merits, the Organization asserts that the discipline imposed is unreasonable. It urges that we set it aside as excessive.

 There is no doubt that Carlson used the words "oh f---" an February 1, 1978. He admitted saying so. But this does not necessarily make him guilty of being discourteous, immoral, quarrelsome or otherwise vicious as char only be determined by an analysis of the circumstances and context in which the words were uttered. Particular attention should be addressed to whether the words were directed toward anyone, whether the language is commonplace,: whether those hearing it were offended, what other language would also offend them, and whether others, similarly situated, would have been offended.

 The only way to determine these and other relevant questions is to afford petitioner an opportunity to present evidence and arguments, to call relevant witnesses, and to amply cross-examine witnesses who testify. That is, a full, fair, and impartial hearing must be provided.

 To be sure, the hearing officer must be given great latitude in conducting the hearing on the property. The hearing is subject to his sole discretion. A reviewing body must give considerable deference to his determination o whether arguments are relevant.

 However, when the record indicates that a fair, adequate, and impartial hearing has not been provided, the deference given to the hearing officer must end. That is, when the hearing officer's actions and comments do not afford an impartial investigation, it cannot be tolerated. Rule 27 of the Agreement between the parties provides, in part:





The record here is replete with examples of the conducting officer exceeding the boundaries of propriety. While verbally
 assuring Claimant and Claimant°s representatives of Carrier's.
 intention to provide a "fair and impartial investigation," his conduct
 did not. Despite objection, the hearing officer precluded relevant,
 cross-examination, refused to allow the Organization to call witnesses
 in the order it wished, and inappropriately instructed witnesses not
 to answer questions posed. In short, he generally exhibited conduct
 which suggested partiality. He did not permit Claimant a full
 opportunity .to present his case.

 This Board has previously set aside discipline when a hearing officer failed to conduct the investigation objectively and fairly. See for example Third.Division Awards 20014 and 17156. This is the appropriate disposition of this case. We must sustain the claim presented without reaching the merits.



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



        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 4~2&

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December 1979.