PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The dismissal of Laborer L. J. Alexander for allegedly 'threatening Mr. J. M. Pena' on June 25, 1980 was without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of unproven charges (System File MW-80-126/287-20-A).

 (2) laborer L. J. Alexander shall be reinstated with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired, his record be cleared and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a Laborer at Houston, Texas, was dismissed far
 violating Carrier Rule No. 802 on June 25, 1980. At the
 subsequent investigation held on July 25, 1980, Claimant specifically denied
 that he had engaged in any misconduct. The Yard Foreman gave the following account
 of an incident which allegedly occurred on June 25, 1980. At the beginning of
 Claimant's shift, the Yard Foreman and Claima4t met with the Superintendent to
 discuss Claimant's dislike for certain job assignments. Later in the shift,
 Claimant approached the Yard Foreman; he threatened the Foreman; he followed the
 Foreman's car to a fast-food restaurant; and,'in the restaurant parking lot,
 Claimant again threatened the Foreman while displaying a firearm. According to
 the Yard Foreman, Claimant stated that he would get the Foreman in retaliation
 for reporting him to the Superintendent. Two other witnesses testified that
 when the Yard Foreman returned from lunch, the Foreman was visibly upset as he
 related the details of his confrontation with Claimant. Claimant denied
 threatening the Foreman either verbally or with a weapon. He further stated that
 he had gone directly home for lunch without encountering the Foreman.

 In this case, we cannot overrule the hearing officer's decision to attach more credibility to the Yard Foreman's testimony than to Claimant's blanket denials. In addition, there is sufficient evidence in the record which lends credence to the Yard Foreman's statements. First, the other two witnesses, who listened to the Yard Foreman as he told them about Claimant's threats, said the Foreman was obviously shaken by the incident. Second, Claimant had just been admonished at the Yard Foreman's behest. Claimant was angry and sought to retaliate for what he believed was unfair treatment. These surrounding circumstances in conjunction with the Yard Foreman's testimony constitute substantial evidence that Claimant committed the charged violation.

 Given Claimant's poor prior disciplinary record as well as the seriousness of Claimant's offense, we penalty.


        FINDINGS: 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 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 Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        Attest: Acting Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


By- C
    / Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of July 1983.