File MW-DEC-84-68


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to and
 Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company

 Statement
 of Claim: Claim on behalf of J. P. Spalding requesting reinstatement
 and pay for time lost appealing his dismissal for conduct
 unbecoming an employee and violation of Rule G.

 Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of
 the parties Agreement establishing this Board.
 Claimant Gang Foreman, on July 20, 1988, arrived at the
 Decatur yard office, talked with the Assistant Roadmaster,
 about 5:40 AM, and requested that he needed the day off as
 his wife had stolen his car. He was advised that his
 services were needed but in view of Claimant's, apparent,
 upset erratic behavioral condition he was permitted to
 leave. Upon leaving the property driven by the Machine
 Operator who had driven him to work, Claimant instructed
 said driver to take him to his mother-in-law's house in
 order to get his vehicle back.
 After arriving at the house of his mother-in-law, the
 Claimant proceeded to the front door with a gun wrapped in a
 rag. The occupants would not allow the Claimant to come
 inside so he proceeded to the back of the house. An
 altercation subsequently ensued. The Claimant discharged
 the weapon and a bullet struck a female located in the
 house. Claimant instructed the Machine Operator who had
 driven him there to leave as someone had been shot.
 The City Police were dispatched to the premises and
 when they arrived they arrested Claimant on the charges of
 reckless conduct, unlawful use of a weapon and having no
 firearm permit. The Claimant was booked and released on
 bond with a court date set for August 22, 1988.
 Claimant requested the Division Engineer to grant him
 one week's vacation immediately effective on July 21, 1988.
 The Supervisor advised Claimant that his request would be
 granted. However, he was instructed to submit to a
 urinalysis test. The test results were positive for
 marijuana.
 Claimant was notified to attend an investigation to
 determine his responsibility for conduct unbecoming -an
                                  146 6 / a Lo


                        -2- Award No. 90


        employee, for leaving company property in a company vehicle and proceed to a residence with a firearm in his possession and discharging the firearm. He also was cited as being in violation of Rule G as a result of the urinalysis test. As a result of the formal investigation, Carrier concluded therefrom that Claimant was guilty of conduct unbecoming an employee and Rule G. He was dismissed from service as discipline therefor.


        Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under his discipline rule. That he was held out of service, particularly in the circumstances involved here, cannot be deemed other than a major offense which is permitted under the rule.


        There was sufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant's culpability of the charges placed against him.


        The discipline is deemed reasonable. This claim will be denied.


Award: Claim denied.

 S. . Hanrnons, Jr., oyee Member ~ Milder, Ca Member

Ar hur T. Van Wart, Chairman

and Neutral Member


Issued August 14, 1989.