AWARD NO. 21
 CASE M. 23
 PARTTF'S 'it) T'ifF DISPUTE
Chicago and Worth Western Transportation Oompaz STA"NT Oh CIATK:

    "Claim of the System Omrittee of the Brotherhood that


        (1) The discipline assessed against Mr. W. L. Wolfs, (.3t) days suspension and desiotion from foreman to than) was excessive, unwarranted and wholly disproportionate to the alleged offense (Carrier's File D-11-16A-112 ) .


(2) Claimant Wolfes seniority as foreman be restored and that he be
 allowed the difference between the maintenance gang foresran rate
 and the traakman rate of pay for all tins worked as a trackman sub
 sequent to his demotion."
 OPIMN OP BOARD#
 This case involves a 30-day auapeneion and the demotion .frost Track
 Fbreran to Trackman o1 Hr. H. L. Wolfe, following an investigation into charg
 contained in a Notice of Investigation dated June 23, 1976, reading in pertinent
 part as followne

 "Your responsibility for not directing your crew in an efficient manner which, therefore, resulted in your crew's not performing their duties in a productive, alert and attentive newer, on June 3,, 1976, while you were euiployed as, Pbreaan at Valentine, Nebraska, Job too. 001." Fv1dence adduced at the hearing, including a niznate-byte observation of Claimant's work crew on June 31, 1976, by Carrier police officers as well as by frank admissions by Claimant demonstrate that he permitted his gang fro take
 ecxoessirre breaks on that day. Specifically, the r"ord indicates that Claimant
 and his crew performed lean than tour hours of actual track work during the eight
 hour shit. Claimant occupied a position of responsibility and ryes himself largely
 unsupervised in the field. W hint failure to himself perform and to make sure his
 man performed a full dale's work for a full day's pay, he abused the trust and
 authority which Carrier placed in his. 1hare is no question that Claimant was
 liable for discipline but the issue reins whether the penalty imposed is Inappro
 priately severe in light of the cirturastano".
 The penalty imposed upon Claimant for his siaooodact was a 30-day suspension without par as well as a presumably peruanant demotion from Track Foreman to Trackxan. 'In assessing the appropriat as of this pe"Ity the taco primary considerations are the nature of the offense and the past record of the employee. Clearly, Claimant did engage in culpable dereliction of duty which cannot and should not be condoned. Carrier is entitled both
                            by moo s sad equity to receive a fhll

day's work for a fall, da''a pair. The responsibility to adhere to this basic x
 is particularly strong where the employee involved is a sruperrisor who is exp
 both to set an lo b? his own behavior and to efficiently direct and control
 the xen working under hire. Hslanced against one day's serious transgression, hov
 over, are 32 years of exemplary service, 16 of those yes as a Fb . (Daring
 initial handling Carrier asserbd that Claimant had received taro wlettera o! repri
 xaunds in February, 19Th, relative to handling of his crews. The Organisation
 objected that letters o! reprimand are not sdisoipline" for purposes o! subsequent
 determination of the appropriate quantum to be imposed for later misconduct. At
 our Hoard hearing Carrier withdrew all arguments based upon the letters o! repri
 aausd and stipulated that the imposition of discipline in this case was based solely
 upon the nature of Claimant's misconduct on June 3, 1976. In light of these
 ,2..
 i,' developments we have no need to reach, and express no opinion upon, the question
      of whether letters of reprimand nay be appropriately considered as discipline

      when reviewing an employee's record.)

            We do not downplay the seriousnaes of Claimant's dereliction of duty on

      June 3, 1976, brat we must conclude that the penalty of 30 days O suspension plus

      demotion was excessive and unreasonable under the circumstances. So far as the

      record shows, he wax an employee with 32 years: of nnxl emished service, during 16

      of which he served Carrier as Foreman. There is no suggestion in the record of

      incorrigibility or refusal to respond to progressive discipline aim* this is

      Claimant's first offense. Reason does not support a conclusion that a man who

      has given 16 years of satisfactory service as a For is incapable of doing so

      in the future. We are not prepared to accept the organization's analogy between

      dsaotion and dismissal but we are persuaded that the permanent stigma and loss of

      inn associated with demotion was not warranted in this case. Thirty days#

      susp ion was appropriate bat the demotion in addition was excessive and acoor&

      Ingly we shall sustain the claim.


      Public Law Hoard No. 1844, upon the whole record and all of the evi· deuce, finds sad holds as follows:

      1. That the Carrier and I4rployee involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and bTloyse within the meaning of the Railway Labor lot;

      2. that the Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved hereinj and


            3. that the Agreement was violated.

                          AW


        Main :sustained. Carrier is directed to comply xith this Award within 30 days cal issuance.


                  Dana S. Uschan,


    H w re oy ` . N s 'c` ege l C arvlleir x" Membe


Dated !,~. <..~- I t f ?, ;;