(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,

( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
              (The ,-lashington Terminal Company


$TATEMEIP' OF CLAB-1: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
              (OL-9479) that:


(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective July i, 1;72, particularly Article 13, when it assessed discipline of dismissal on C. J. Little, Baggage and Mail Handler, Washington, D.C., on July 2, 1j~O.

 (b) Claimant Little to be restored to service, .is record be cleared of the charges brought against him on June 24, 1920 and he be compensated for wage loss sustained in accordance with the previsions of Article 18(e).

 OPLl1021 OF BOAFD-Claimant Little was employed in Carrier's. service or
 Yovember 13, 1976. On June 21, 1980 the Claimant :vas regularly assigned as Baggage and Vai1 Handler, Washington, D. C.

 On June 24, 1920, Claimant Little was requested to appear for a hearing on June 30, 1980 in connection with a charge of insifcordination e= June 21, 1980. Claimant Little was charged with failure to follow instructions of his super·risor when his supervisor instructed Claimant to assist him in ';r_loading a tra vul , r and profane remarks to his supervisor when Claimant was o_. the c aN'ing lot near Seccnd Street gate on the same date.

 Subsequent to the hearing C1aiTant Little was notified on July 2, 1yr0 that he was dismissed from serrice.

 Under the data of July 14, 1980 Claimant appealed the discipline and the anneal was heard on August 11, 19-30. C= August 29, 19E0 Cla_,ant's arreal was denied.

        I_ Carrier .aintains that Assistant Foreman Jamison ::ad e·r.=.ry

riont to take t'.·.e Claimant out of se_^iice and c~arge him with insubordira do^. ~.
 _:a Carrier ==rher maintains that Claim-nt should ha-re obe~re.d the orders
 of Assistan : orer3n Ja.: ison and complained 1 ater i- .... - '-,-d any
 at ~ll.fIT~"_ird Di:isicn awards 22=C9, 23010, 4L49).
                    Award Number 23950 Page 2

                    Docket Number CL-24115


Assistant Foreman Jamison testified that he had requested Claimant to assist him in unloading 4 CTRs and that Claimant reused. He further testified that the Claimant understood his instructions.

 The carrier asserts that the Assistant Foreman later saw the Claimant at the Second Street Gate and Claimant began calling him "mother flickers"; the Claimant then invited the Assistant Foreman to "come on out" and fight, and, if the Assistant Foreman went out there, he (Claimant) would "whip his ass". Assistant Foreman Jamison testified that he did not say anything to the Claimant to provoke the profanity.

 Patrolman Caporaletti testified that he heard the Claimant shout profanities toward Assistant Foreman Jamison and then invite the Assistant Foreman out into the street. Patrolman Caporaletti further testified that the Assistant Foreman said nothing to the Claimant to provoke the profanities.

 Foreman Warner testified that Assistant Foreman Jamison had called him at about 8:55 A.M. to state that the Claimant had failed to follow his instructions and that he (Jamison) consequently took the Claimant out of service. Foreman Warner further testified that the Claimant called him about as hour and a ,half later to say that he wanted to apologize to Assistant Foreman Jamison. Testimony of Foreman Warner indicates that he atte that he talked to Assistant Foreman Jamison who accepted the apology; that he called Investigator Sapp who said he had written the incident up and that there was nothing else (Warner) could do.

 The Carrier maintains that the Claimant's apology indicates his guilt of insubordination.

 The Carrier further maintains that there is nothing in Foreman Warner's testimony to indicate that a "fight bet" was the basis for the apology as the Claimant asserts.

 The Carrier asserts that Claimant's testimony is contradictory, and therefore not credible. Claimant Little testified that he agreed to help unload after he picked up the Richmond :nail, but also later testified that he had ,just brought up the Richmond n;il a minute before.

 The Carrier notes that the Cla -.-a : - ._~^. _ _ _._ . _~,.- _=ned t wi c=
 prior to his dismissal on J ulf 2, 1~S0. On ~U~J `t=a
 Y T, i>7:; :Ia=,ant Li_ was disciplined for using abusive language toward his superrisor and for assaulting his supervisor by threateneing to "get him" if the supervisor attempted to do any~;hing about the Claimant's absenteeism and tardiness.

Award ;inmber 23990

Docket "unber y-2.'+115


za ~:, e 3

                                      ,

Or--aa_=ati0n co:ccnd.s -hat Faro=:Yn Oa=0rc,_=tti'_ __,_. Only re=a.t-as :O 11:1-2·.''. profanities and 4Ces noz gay arythin___,_ alleged refusal to carry out an order.

 Organization maintains that Patrolzan Caporaletti's testi=ny suggests some disrespect -cut not insubordination.

 Organization further =intains that =oreman Warner's t__t_nony is hearsay as to the alleged insubordina`,,ton and that the Carrier ' as _·CroduCed n0 eviden Foreman Tamison. the Organization maintains that this is riot sufficient testimony to sustain the charge.-7Claimant testified as follows.

    "Q: Did you tell .'·Ir. ,:amison that this would not be done by you?


    A: 1r0. ~ -,old .17J. would d0 it after 1 had fin:i;.i.:2G doing my duties which then was to take the ma=1 from the Post Office over to the truck dock."


Orgaaization.coatends that ,roe-ressive discipii^-_, re=sonsb=y applied, :ro,zld not call for dismissal, based on the ev deuce provided. (nird Li·.·isica Awards 1y037 and 1201 E).

        Upon a careful consideration of ,.__ _°_cord is this case, ~__-_ _

concludes that discipline -,,-as warranted. However, in t:.ese crr_~a._.....
 Board concluded that the discipline was excessive. In so 30:0, ~.:-_
 notes that this is the third infraction by Claimant. Anot'___ _..=___w_.
 call suo~°ct .,= im,ant to possible dism_asa1. CI ai,ant voter __~0 ..
 athat _.. t!:e future, - si:ovl~ compl· wit._ an o~__ _.__ _____._
 T:7.s ^ri.11Ci~^.1e_l.u '.1211 established 1n `:^1S _-,^.'Ws-..^y a=d it I-as 4

 by she Ecar3 in a number o_° Awards. a: d

 .sccor3ingl;,, we hold that Clsic2;t s.^_^_°11'ce reinstated ~_-,- ....7; ~ L7

 nd ail o r r._.rts v =Paired.

 c3 wit'.-, seniority ,nd-1- c_~:y a
          Award N=ber 23990 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-24115


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 discipline was excessive.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD AaTUST<1ENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 aational Railroad Adjustment Board

 B3.
    Rosemarie Brasch - administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of August 19'82.

                                ~i~-rC~l ~e~ `,