(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Haployee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATF7MT OF CLAM Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

(n) (terrier violated provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement at Amarillo, Texas, on January 3, 1979, when it removed R. A. Comer from the service of the Carrier., and

 (b) R. A. Conner shall now be reinstated into the service of the Carrier with all past rights restored on the basis they were prior to his dismissal from the service 3, 1979, sad

 (c) Mr. R. A. Conner shall now be compensated eight (8) hours pay each work day of Oar Clerk Position No. 6065, at the rate of $57.6381 per day since January 3, 1979, and the same far tech work day of Position No. 6065, subject to wage increases, until he is reinstated to the service of the Gbrrier, and

 (d) That all correspondence pertaining to this investigation be withdrawn by the Carrier and the transcript of the investigation from his personal record.

 OPINION Cg' BOARD: Claimant R. A. Conner, a Station Clerk, was given a Notice
 of Investigation dated December 26, 1978 "concerning alleged
 threat to do bodily harm to Santa Fe employee on December 13 on telephone and
 in person in Assistant Agent's office", and irregularity of attendance in 19'(8.

 An investigation was held on January 3, 1979 sad later that day Clsfaant was dismissed.

 A review of the record establishes that this matter is properly before this Hoard. The record is als threats of bodily harm made by the Claimant to various employee including the Carrier's Special Services investigators. Claimant, in speaking to those employee, made numerous ref it, and his accuracy at a substantial distance. Although CLsimsat stated at the investigation that it was not his intention to threaten he conceded that others could have taken what he said as a threat. There was substantial evidence is the record to su No employer can countenance having its employee subjected to threats of vio1eace by another employs.


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole retard and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee involved is this dispute are respectively (terrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acts as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board hen 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: scat ve Secretary


          Dated at Chicago, Illinois., this 26th day of February 1982.


                                        r CC. t I

                                        ~~ l: c~ \`~

                                        ·,- r ,_ _~


                                    ~e -


`z~ z
 w

                        LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT

                        TO

                        AWARD N0. 23447, DOCKET CL=23166

                        (REFEREE DENNIS)


        The Referee committed serious error when he dismissed the Claim of the Organization on the basis of Carrier's belated suggestion that the Organization fai

        Careful examination of all of the correspondence in the record indicates that not once while the claim was being handled on the property did the Carrier a gue this point. The grievance involved in this Award received exte 19, 1976. Over the next three years considerable correspondence was exchanged and several conferences occurred. Review of this extensive handling indicates that not once in writing or in conference did the Carrier allege

        This Board has often held that such arguments are procedural and must be raised on the property. such arguments on the property is construed to be a waiver. Typical of the host of Awards on this su 14903 (Dolnick) and 16727 (Engelstein).

        The Carrier had ought not been permitted to escape decision of the claim on its merits by belate

                          _2_ .


Time Limit rule was violated for failure to cite a rule when the claim was being handled on the property.
      The Award is in error and requires dissent.


                                    Fletcher, Labor Member


    ~Fcev o


    f:. .


C~cO
    90 Office - 6 ~r\a :' '