STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim that former Northern Division Trackman
 reen a re nstated to service with seniority, vacation, all benefit rights, wage loss and/or otherwise made whole, account un justly removed from service on May 1, 1981 as a result of formal investigation hold on April 20, 1961.

 FINDIHOSs This Public Law Board finds that the parties herein are; Wfar sad EopIoyae within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute the claimant was charged with fighting while on duty at approximately 1:30 p.m. on April 9. 19,31 near i-T 100, Paris, Texas District. The testimony of record has bee:: studied, and all of the statements have been considered.

 The alsimsat has a perfactly clear record, even though his guilt is this instance is wll established. The claimant did engage in a scuffle with another employee. The testimony reveals that both amp ess beeame aware that-they were violating the rules and stopped within 15 seconds. No injury or harm was ;lone to either employee.

 Although scuffling on Company property dues constitute cause for permanent discharge, under the circumstances in the instant case. It is the opinion of the referee that permanent dismissal is too severe. Therefore the Carrier is directed to reinstate the claimant with aae..iority and all other rights unimpaired but without pay for tins 1osit~

 AWARD: Claim-sustained as per above.

 ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply with this award within t=rty days of the date of this award.

                                r~on l"1emDer

                                $


                                                    I


CHICAr0, ILLINOIS ,0m er
 February 17, 1983
 I5-~3;)--A~'dL e-2-ch

CARRIER'S DISSENT TO

AWARD N0. 216


The majority has properly recognized that fighting on duty is grounds for permanent discharge, but grievously erred in reinstating the claimant, albeit without pay for time lost. In view or' the serious nature of the violation, the claimant's extremely poor work record and the fact (as pointed out in Carrier's letter of March 16, 1982) that on January 18, 1982, he was sentenced to ten (10) years in the Texas Department of Corrections, which sentence was subsequently reduced to ten (10) years probation, as result of a shooting incident occurring subsequent to the claimant's removal from service, there was no ,justification for reinstatement of the claimant.

    For the above reasons Carrier dissents to Award No. 216.


                          Carri r Rember