Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 Award No. 32503
 Docket No. CL-33582
 98-3-96-3-1005

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee James E. Conway when award was rendered.

 (Transportation Communications International Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:










FINDINGS:

 The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
 Form I Award No. 32503
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-33582
 98-3-96-3-1005

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.


This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.




Claimant Geary Johnson's Submission in this matter is anomalous to the extent that. at his request, it consists of two parts. Part 1 was submitted by the Organization after review by Claimant. Part 11 was submitted by Claimant with instructions that Part 1 be considered as an insert to it. For ease of discussion, the Board does not distinguish those position statements herein unless context requires otherwise. Regardless of whether expressly referenced herein, the extensive evidence and argument advanced by all Parties has been considered in its entirety in the preparation of this Award.


Claimant was terminated from his position as Metrolink Ticket Clerk with Amtrak on November 28, 1995 for activity deemed by the Carrier to violate its policies and standards governing personal conduct. When terminated, Claimant had three and one-half years' service with Amtrak and was assigned to its station at Los Angeles. The charges upon which that action was based were stated initially in the Notice of Formal Investigation directed to Claimant on October 18, 1995:



Form 1 Award No. 32503
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-33582
 98-3-96-3-1005




Although it is apparent from the record that this dispute is intense and multilayered, the facts leading to Claimant's discharge are relatively simple. For background purposes, an abbreviated chronicle of those events follows.


On May 12, 1995 Claimant wrote an interoffice memo to Crew Assignment Clerk Joanie Goss captioned "Retaliation." In it, he summarizes and quotes the criminal penalty provisions of a Temporary Restraining Order he describes as in place against Lucy Bormann, an Amtrak Lead Agent and Claimant's immediate Supervisor. This memo further recites that Goss "on two occasions within the last two weeks Ihasl verbally told me that Amtrak Payroll is going to rescind my anniversary date pay raise (3 years). 1 consider such action to rescind unlawful and if it is taken I deem it as retaliatory . . . ." After then quoting from material cited as "Government Code," Claimant writes:



On May 22, 1995 Claimant sent a certified letter to his fellow employee Flora Davies purporting to review a conversation he had with her on May 17. That communication states in part:

Form 1 Award No. 32503
 Page 4 Docket No. CL-33582
 98-3-96-3-1005


This letter reflects copies to Claimant's Union Representative, Amtrak Labor Relations, Amtrak Payroll, Metrolink, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Amtrak Police, and L. Tamoria, who was Amtrak's Manager-Customer Services at Los Angeles at the time.


On June 6, 1995, Tamoria wrote Claimant citing the above letters, characterizing both as "intimidating and threatening," and directing Claimant to pursue any future complaints through his bargaining representative. Tamoria then held further discussions with Claimant, one lasting three hours on July 27, and a second on September 29.


On October 2, 1995, Claimant sent by certified mail to his immediate Supervisor a four-paged, single-spaced typewritten communication styled an "Open Letter to Lucy Bormann."' Long and rambling, that letter indicates it was directed by Amtrak President Tom Downs= It says much about Claimant's estrangement from his


'in an obvious typo, Carrier's Notice of Formal Investigation cites the date of this letter as October 4, 1995.

=Claimant wrote Downs on March 14, 1995 to complain about Metrolink's policy on Ticket Clerks entering and exiting the Los Angeles ticket office. On April 19, Downs responded, explaining that while there were then no restrictions in place on that subject, Manager Tamoria "expects an employee will use good judgment at such times to ensure that customers . . . are not adversely affected by the absence of a clerk. If an employee has any question about the appropriateness of departing the ticket office. he/she should consult the ticket agent."

Form 1 Award No. 32503
 Page 5 Docket No. CL-33582

workplace and his co-workers, and about why Amtrak believed it had to act to avoid the kind of calamity that so often leads the evening news. Accordingly, we excerpt passages below at length:







Form I Award No. 32503
 Page 6 Docket No. CL-33582
 98-3-96-3-1005






Form 1 Award No. 32503

 Page 7 Docket No. CL-33582
 98-3-96-3-1005







The Board reviewed every document in the nearly three inch file comprising the record in this matter, including the 203 page transcript of Claimant's formal Investigation conducted over a two day period in October and November 1995. Vast tracts of this material consist of Claimant's wordy harangues. No purpose is served in a detailed summary of that troublesome discourse. or in an itemized recounting of his behavior before and after he composed the letters leading to his dismissal. except to note that in our view his employer, bargaining representatives and coworkers without

Form 1 Award No. 32503
 Page 8 Docket No. CL-33582
 98-3-96-3-1005

exception demonstrated patience and civility in dealing with him under what appear to have been difficult circumstances. That point is perhaps best made by regarding some of the ominous seismic activity they observed starting with a seemingly trivial dispute between Claimant and Bormann in February 1995 and continuing through the case handling of his termination on the property.


Among the written allegations by Claimant against Amtrak during this period were charges of race discrimination, sex discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unlawful conspiracy, doctoring transcripts, unfair labor practices, breach of employment contract, and maintaining a hostile working environment. Among the laws and Rules he contends Amtrak offended were the United States Constitution, the Railway Labor Act, the collective bargaining Agreement, EEO procedures, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carrier's "Standards of Excellence," the California Code of Civil Procedure, unspecified federal, state and local laws, undefined safety standards, and Public Law 85-257. There is an allusion to torture. Among those invited to jump into the debate by copies of Claimant's very substantial correspondence are the NAACP, the Black Caucus, Diane Feinstein, Janet Reno, Amtrak President Tom Downs, the "Railroads Congressional Committee," President William Clinton, all Amtrak Department Heads, the President of the TCU and various officials of the Organization, Amtrak Labor Relations, Amtrak Police, the FBI, an Attorney General, the National Railroad Adjustment Board, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Office of Revenue Accounting, the Nation of Islam, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, Los Angeles City Council Members, Long Beach Mayor Beverly O' Neil, Long Beach Council Members, the Civil Rights Division of the AFL-CIO, "MTA, "SCRRA," the Amtrak Inspector General, the Secretary, Department of Transportation, the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights and numerous parties unidentified by title but for whom the record reveals no apparent connection with this dispute. Among the various demands asserted by Claimant were claims for one thousand dollars daily and one million dollars in actual and punitive damages against the Carrier.


No silver lining to these clouds appeared during the handling of this claim on the property. Originally scheduled to commence on October 27, 1995, Claimant's formal Investigation was delayed to November 6, 1995 at his request. A full day of testimony was had, and the Investigation was recessed until November 18 after numerous fellow employees Claimant had asked to appear on his behalf failed to do so. Neither did they appear at the reconvened Hearing, where Claimant himself also declined to testify on his own behalf. He was, however, allowed to defend his actions pro .,e at these

Form 1 Award No. 32503
 Page 9 Docket No. CL-33582
 98-3-96-3-1005

proceedings, and both he and his TCU representative were permitted to cross-examine and argue in tandem. Claimant's efforts in that regard, although reasonably indulged by the Hearing Officer, tended to be obstructive, fixated on irrelevant legalisms, and marked by both an atomizing preoccupation with race and a grim determination to avoid the very issues that had to be addressed.


If the problem were merely ineptitude, the Board would have little reason to play these particular keys so hard, for incompetence is commonplace. It is not trial tactics, however, but rather Claimant's obvious mind set at these Hearings which strongly reinforces our view that no further amount of progressive discipline conceivably could have been effective in modifying his abusive behavior. Claimant - nearly two months after being dismissed - still did not understand that his conduct had caused the values of his company and his colleagues to be severely jostled. For example, this exchange was had at the November 6 Hearing:














Form 1 Award No. 32503
 Page 10 Docket No. CL-33582

      TAMORIA: That's correct.


      CLAIMANT: Is it possible something else could have occurred that day, before she got the letter, that could have caused her to be frightened'!


                              *19


Or this surreal testimony, moments later:

      "CHARGING OFFICER: Could you . . . indicate for the record your conversation with Ms. Tamoria.


      BORMANN: Uh, yes. I was very concerned about, again, the contents of the letter. I felt frightened and 1 felt that, uh, the letter was really not true, and I feared for my life at that point . . . because having to work with [Claimant[ here, 1 didn't know what was in his mind at that time, when he wrote that letter. And, after that, it's like, 1 haven't been able to concentrate on my work. I mean, even my personal life has suffered a lot.


      CLAIMANT: Objection. Irrelevant to the charges.


      HEARING OFFICER: I think she's just responding to how she feels. I think it's a valid response, I'll let it stand. Mr. Villamor''


      CLAIMANT: Is that . . . objection. Am I being charged with uh, with her feelings, or is the charge that I'm violating the Standards of Excellence°"


There is not much here to suggest the Board must reach for recondite conclusions from the obvious facts. On this record, this relatively short term employee has never acknowledged. never mind accepted, responsibility for activity in the workplace that was categorically beyond excuse. Warned about composing threatening letters. and declining an opportunity to confer with Employee Assistance counselors, he failed to follow clear and explicit instructions to conform his behavior to basic standards of right and wrong. He then squandered his Hearing time nit-picking, disdaining his victims and - the idea is laughable - portraying himself as a martyr for on-the-job safety. In contrast, TCU representative Davis focused sharply on the substance, effect and seriousness of Claimant's conduct, arguing that Claimant was in the habit of

Form 1 Award No. 32503
 Page 11 Docket No. CL-33582
 98-3-96-3-1005

communicating by letter with co-workers, and the letters in question were simply further attempts to correspond about legitimate workplace issues. Davis worked with economy of expression and professionally, but in isolation and against long odds, to put the best face on a bad case.


The Board finds no evidence of racial or sexual bias, and no retaliation or other unlawful conduct in Carrier's handling of this matter. No objective facts were produced in support of suggestions that the TCU conspired to frustrate Claimant's statutory rights to effective representation. Plentiful evidence to the contrary abounds on this record.


The Board finds that Carrier acted reasonably in concluding that, in an era long on workplace violence, Claimant's conduct could no longer be tolerated. Claimant's termination was for just cause, and necessary to restore a measure of serenity to Amtrak employees at Los Angeles terrified by his behavior.


                        AWARD


      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of March 1998.