(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE :
              ( (Michigan Interstate Railway Comrany -Operator)


STA=:,-r'2iT OF CI,4·?: "Claim of the System Comm-ittee of the Brotherbooc that:

 (1) The ninety (90) days of suscension imposed' upon Tracrman L. O'Dea for alleged insubordination and 'quarrelsome behavior toward Chief Engineer R. A. P-u7.' on February 15, 1981 was without just and sufficient cause and on the oasis of unproven charges.

 (2) The cla?=ant's record shall be cleared and he shall be coupensated for all wage loss suffered."<
C?%fI0'_; OF EOARD: On February 17, 1981 Claimant, La;rr=face 0'p·°a was -rof-Jl
 to attend a formal inves~igation on Febrta=j, 25, 19:11 for alleced insLbordiration and q;,taTT'elsO~.e behavior. After postponements, the
 j
 nvestis?tion was held on Marsh ',3; 1901. On :·3rc~h 10~, 198= 'CCl°--o.nt was notified by tie Carrier t"--t he had been found guilty as charged and tha assessed a ninety (90) day actual suspension.

 A review of tine record shows sufficient sucstantial evidence to warrant conclusion that Clai:ant O' respond to questions put to him -oy Chief Engineer R. A. Paul and when he a°ed profanity at a=proximately 12:30 AM, on February 15, 1921. Testiaory freu the investiga-tion shows, however, that Engineer Pa,-,11s behavior during this whz)le incident was also not without blemish and that the manner in white: he posed the questions to Claimant O'Dea were less than totally polite and civil. Tnis does not diminish the impertinence of Clai=.nt's behavior t0 Oaaarrier O=ficer, but it does permit a reasonable understanding of it in the proper context ine fact of the --latter is that both the Clai--=nt and Engineer Paul were understandably fat their assignren-S and the record shows that they both engaged in behavior whim:^. was less than correct i= terms of normal employer-employee ref=dons. The Board has gone on reco-d. to the effect that cooperation and civil cordsc~ in the wori-,)!is the responsibility of both the employer arms the employee (='hir3 Division Award 21810 inter alia.).

 With respect to the quantum of discipline given to t=_ Claiaact, t_:is board has also held. on nlL.erOUs occasions that the role of discipline shoul-not only b°_ punit
                  Award :dumber 24437 Page 2 1

                  Docket Number K.d-245(2


measures (Second Division Award 6485; Third Division Awards 5372 and 19037). In view of the demeanor of Engineer Paul as party to the instant incident, and in view of Claimant's past record (Third Division 23508 and 22320) which is without blemish, the Board can only conclude that the quantum of discipline imposed in the instant case exceeds reasonable bounds.

 The Board rules, therefore, that the ninety (90) day actual suspension be reduced to a thirty (30) day actual suspension, that Claimand be made whole and compen the other sixty (60) days, and that this action of the Board be duly noted in Claimant's personnel file.

 RIidDIZS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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 mining of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 Taut this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, and

        That the discipline was excessive,


                        A N A R D


        Claim sustained is accordance with the Opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTUSRS~.ENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By -C -»'L;t ./r. .~
 Rosemarie Brasch - Adeinistrative Assistant

 Dated at Micago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1983.