Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company VAS fern I\es2orl

 Statement 1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement on August 14,
 of 1976 by unfairly and arbitrarily dismissing David J.
 Claim Musa!!, Laborer, from the service of the Carrier.
 2. Claimant David J. Musall shall be reinstated to
 Carrier ->rvice, compensated for all lest wages and shall
 have all seniority and other rights returned unimpaired.

 Findings '=he Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all
 eviden.we, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and
 Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
 as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by
 Agreement dated February 2, 197=, that it has jurisdiction
 of the parties and the subject matter, and that the parties
 were given due notice of the hearing held

        Claimant Laborer, as a result of an incident on August 13, 1°76 in the Fort Wayne Division Engineer's Office Building, was dismissed from service. Division Engineer wrote Claimant, under date of August 16, 1976 as follows:


                "This will confirm that you were dismissed from service on August 14, 1976, for conduct unbecoming an employee of the Norfolk & Western Railway Company in connection with your loud, boisterous behavior in the presence of other employees and your use of profane, abusive threatening and disrespectful language toward superior offices at approximately 4:00 PEI, on August 13, 1976, in the Fort Wayne Division Engineer's Office Building."

i
 I
 Y , a
 7
 Pi,& /760 . Award No. 17
 - Page 2
 Claimant requested and was granted a hearing. which was
 held on Sc^tembe- 8,1976. As a result thereof it was
 1 concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support
                  the conclusions and that Claimant would remain dismissed.


                  A review of the transcript reflects that Claimant, on August 13, 1976 was not at work. He arrived at the Division Engineer's Office Building about 4:00 PM, at which time he was not wearing any shoes or a shirt. Claimant demonstrated a loud, boisterous and profane behavior in the presence of other employees. While the language he used might well be appropriate in the presence of a track gang it was not clearly appropriate in the presence of either.office employees or supervisor. It is clear from the record that there was sufficient cause for Cla~-.ant to be severely disciplined.


                  We find no merit to the employees contention that the hearing officer should have sequestered all witnesses in the absence of laruage so providing. As pointed out in Second Division Award No. 4001, (Anrod):


                        (1) At the investigation hearing, the Claimants representative requested that the witnesses be excluded frcm the hearing room until each had testified. Since the Hearing Officer denied

- this request, the Claimant contends that he was
                        not afforded with a fair and impartial hearing

                        as provided in Rule 10 of the Lah;r Agreement.

                        The fla:a in this contention is that Rule 10 does

                        not require the exclusion of witnesses from the

                        hearing room during the testimony of other witnesses.

                            PLQ /'76 o..Award No. 17

                            Page 3

            ' 'The matter is left to the discretion of the

                  Hearing Officer. Thus, the latters refusal

                  to grant the request for the exclusion of

                  witnesses did not violate Rule 10 or make the

                  investigation unfair and impartial. See Awards

                  1.8179 of the First Division and 5061 of the

                  Third Division."

                  The Neutral of this Board believes that sequestering

                  witnesses, when requested, tends to lend a more impartial

                  and balanced tone to an investigation. The Hearing Officer

                  was not compelled to do this by Rule and such failure

                  does not const'_tute prejudicial error.


                  The Hearing Officer does, have control of the hearing and thus controls the order of calling witnesses, while it is more preferrable that Carrier, as the moving party,.. ihould put its wi= esses on first in order to lay the foundatic.n for the case for and against Claimant.it is not error =o put h-m on.='-rst. Therefore, .the Board concludes that there is no procedural error so egrous that it serves to cause reversal of the discipline.


                  However, :'-Ie Board believes that Cls -*.^iant should be given another opportunity which will serve as his "last chance".

' Consequently, Claimant will be returned to service', without
                  pay, .on a probationary period for six months. Claimant and

                  his Local Chairman will meet with the Division Engineer, or

                  his representative in order that Claimant may know how to

                  properly conduct himself when he is attempting to personally

                              .

                                    pce /7 6 a -Award No. 17


Page 4 i
                  handle a grievance, or as here, an alleged payroll shortage. Rule 20-I3 proscribes such procedure and Claimant should therefore become thoroughly conversant therewith.


          Award Claim disposed of as per findings.

          Order Carrier is directed to make this Award effective within

          thirty (30) days of date of issuance shown below.


            M. A. C ri t e, Employee Diem er E. N.o s, Jr , Carrier

            Member


                          -"Arthur fi. Van Wart, Chairman


', and Neutral Member

 Issued at Salem, New Jersey, Aril 4, 1980.