After reporting to Claimant's Supervisors that Claimant had called him a "retard" and a "son-of-a-bitch," employee D. C. Gonzalez was again allegedly subjected to verbal abuse on February 17 and 21,1996, when Claimant repeatedly referred to him as a "snitch." Following Investigation and Hearing, Claimant was removed from service for 45 days for violation of General Rule 1.6. That disciplinary action was suspended on condition that Claimant enroll in Carrier's employee assistance program to address issues of anger control in the workplace, with the further understanding that whether or not the suspension was served, "it will remain part of your personal record." Claimant accepted that offer and lost no time as a result of these incidents.
The Organization asserts a number of procedural objections to Carrier's onproperty handling of this of Rule 40 by not issuing its letter of discipline within 30 days of the Investigation. On the merits, it contends that Carrier has failed in it burden of proving the misconduct charged since the witness whose testimony it relied upon was not credible. The Carrier maintains that the record clearly supports its action; that the discipline imposed was proportionate to the offense, as affirmed by numerous Awards of this Division; and that, in accepting its offer to Form 1 Page 3
withhold imposition of the suspension with the understanding that the record of discipline would be permanent, Claimant is now attempting to breach the clear terms of his understanding with the Carrier.
A careful review of the Organization's procedural arguments suggests that all are without merit. In particular, the Board finds that Hearing in this matter was held on March 5, 1996 and a decision rendered on April 3, 1996 in compliance with Rule 40.
That credibility determinations are the province of the Carrier in these proceedings is a proposition too well established to need annotation here. Accordingly, the Organization's challenge to Gonzalez's credibility is beyond the Board's jurisdiction to address. On the merits, the Board concludes that the charges of violating Rule 1.6 were amply supported by record evidence; that the 45 day suspension assessed - but never served - was neither arbitrary nor capricious; and that it would be inappropriate for the Board to now serve as a kind of cat's paw to relieve the Claimant of the consequences of the bargain he struck with Carrier in agreeing to live with this mark of discipline in order to avoid significant loss of pay. For the reasons stated above, the claim must be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.