(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES 7b DISPUTE:


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

(1) The dismissal of Bridgemea C. J. Randolph for alleged violation of Safety Rules Nos* 17., 18 and 26 was without duet and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to such a charge (System File C-4(13)-CJRJ12-39(78-28) J)·

(2) Bridgemea C. J. Randolph shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his personal record cleared and he shall be compensated for all wage loco suffered."

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, with about seven years of service, was employed as
a bridgeman on midge Gang 8731. The gang was headquartered in camp cars, and, at the time of the occurrence giving rise to the dispute herein, Was stationed at (terrier's Lakeland Shops. The cars were parked on tracks adjacent to the Engine House at Lakeland*

At approximately 5:00 P. M., June 15, 1978, after the force had completed its week's Work, the claimant was using the shop water and air to wash his personal vehicle. When this was noticed by shop supervisory personnel, the Shop Foreman and General Foreman shut the water off and advised claimant that he could not use shop water to wash his personal vehicle; that shop employee were not alloyed to do so; and that the claimant would not be permitted to do so. The (terrier contends that claimant took violent exceptions to the advice and used gross, obscene and totally uncalled for language to the General Foreman, as a result_of which he was advised by the Master Carpenter on June 19, 1978, that he was held out of service pending a formal investigation of the incident that occurred on June 15, 1978.



















The investigation or hearing was held as scheduled, as a result of which claimant was dismissed from the service. A copy of the transcript of the investigation has been made a part of the record. A careful review of the record stews that none of Claimant was present throughout the investigation and was represented. The investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

There was substantial evidence adduced, at the investigation in support of the charges against the c imposed by the Carrier was not arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith. There is no proper basis for the Board to interfere with the discipline imposed.





That the (terrier and the Rmployes 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




                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD AnTI15TKENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of August 1981.