NATIONAL. RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
AWARD *AWARD No. 15
 BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

 Public Law Hoard No. 2406 was established pursuant to the provisions of Section 3, Second (Public Law. 89-456) of the Railway Labor Ac.t,and the applicable rules of the National Mediation Board. The. parties, the National Railroad. Passenger Corporation (Amtrak,-hereinafter the Carrier) and the. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. (hereinafter the Organization), are duly constituted carrier and labor organization representatives as those terms are defined in Sections L and 3. of the Railway Labor Act. After hearing and upon the record, this Board finds that ithas juzisdiction to resolve the following claim:

Claimant, W. E. Ritledge, shall be reinstated to the Carrier's service, compensated for- all wages lost with seniority and benefits unimpaired and the matter be expunged from- his. record." Prior to his dismissal, the Claimant held the position of a trackman in the Carrier's facility at Baltimore, Maryland. On January 25, 1980, at approximately 2 p.m., the Claimant was involved in a serious altercation with a foreman of an interlocking gang working in the vicinity of the Claimant's assignment.
 Public Law Board No. 2406 Case/Award No. 15 Page Two Following an investigation on January 28, 1980, the Claimant was advised that he was. being held ouf of service.. On January 29, 1980, the Carrier sent a certified letter, to the Claimant confirming.that the Claimant was .being held out of service and advising him that a. notice: of trial would follow. Among the Organization's procedural arguments is that the Carrier failed to deliver a copy of the charge listing the date and location of the. trial to the Claimant.. The organization contends that: on. February 4-, 1.980, the Claimant phoned the Carrier's office and was: informed by a stenographer that his trial was scheduled for the next day,- February 5, 1980, at 10 a.m. Contrary to the Onganization.'s contentions, the Carrier asserts that by letter dated January 29', 1980, the. Claimant was properly notified to. appear for trial orr February 4, 1980, regarding the following charge:

ra that, on January 25, 1.980, Friday at approximately 2 p.m. , you. engaged in a fight with another employee at Landover I.xLterlocking, while. on duty, and on Company property-" The Carrier asse=ts that the. trial was postponed and rescheduled for February 5, 1980-. On February 5, 1980, the Claimant appeared for trial and he- was accompanied by a duly authorized representative of the Organization.
 ' Public. Law Hoard- Rio. 2406
 Case/Award No. 15
 Page Three
 The Organization's second procedural argument concerns the conduct of the trial held on. February 5,.1980, and addresses the issue. of notice. The trial commenced at 10:4-7 a.m. and only the Carrier's witness was present'~to testify- The Claimant and his representative, who were also present, asked that the trial be postponed because the Carrier's notice did not permit sufficient time for the Claimant to obtain witnesses. The Conducting Officer, over objection, insisted- that the Carrier`s witness beg permitted to testify, and. allowed the Claimant to crossexamine this. witness- The trial was recessed at 12:18 p.m. and rescheduled to resume on. February 11, 1980, at which time the Claimant was. permitted to present his witnesses and evidence.
 Regardless: of which contention-concerning the notice of trial is accepted, the brevity of said natice: may be: criticized; however,. the overall conduct of the trial cannot be impuned since the Claimant suffered na. prejudicial effects as. a. result of the manner in which. the trial was held.
 The Claimant was: aware of the: specific subject matter o£ the trial, and he attended both. trials accompanied by duly authorized. representatives of his Crgasri.zation ort February and February 11, 1980: At the February S, 1980 trial, the Cbnducting officer refused a. request for an immediate postponement, choosing instead to hear testimony and allow crossexamination of: the Carrier's witness who. was present. The hearing lasted approximately one. and a half hours and a recess was called. The Claimant was then given five (5) days in which
 Public Law Board. No. 2406.
 Case/Award No. 15
 Page Four
 to secure. his. witnesses before the next hearing. Therefore,
 the Claimant was given both the opportunity to cross-examine
 the--> witness, testifying- orL behalf of the Carrier and to present
 witnesses on his own behalf. While the notice issued was not
 model pre-trial procedure, it was. adequate; and, the Conducting
 Officer structured the- hearings in such manner as to ensure a
 full and fair.opportanity for the Claimant to present his case
 and to cross-examine opposing witnesses.. The. Organization has
 failed to demonstrate that the Claimant was denied his rights
 o f due process. or prejudicedin: the manner in which- the claim
 was, heard-. . -
 Tsrnjng to the merits,. this Board, finds that. the discipline. imposed was reasonably ralated. to the prove=. offense.
 SuIzstantiLal,. uncantcaverted. evidence established the following: On June= 15, 1980, the Claimant- was- assigned- as. a Trac3caan and. was working is the vicinity of. the. Landover, rnterlocking. At approximately 12:05 p.rs_, the foreman of: another gang. working in the area. noticed. that tires were. missing from the Claimant's car, which car was parked in. a location. adjacent to and- viewable from the track site. The foreman indicated. to: his. gang that he thought he knewthe individual who had taken the Claimant's ti=es. The alleg%d thief, or practical joker, was an acquaintance of the foreman and. an individual with whom the Claimant was familiar-and had conducted sor=e business dealings, which were apparently unsettled. at the time
 ' Public Law Hoard No. 2406
 Case/Award No. 15
 Page Five
 At approximately 2 p.m., the Claimant noticed that the tires were missing from his car. He asked the foreman if he had observed anyone around his, the Claimant's, car. The foreman took the Claimant aside and told him that he had not seen anyone around the car, but that he thought he knew who had taken the tires. The Claimant asked for the phone number of the individual whom the foreman asserted he suspected of having taken the tires. The foreman gave the Claimant a phone number, knowing that such phone number was incorrect, and the Claimant left the work site to make his phone call. The foreman returned to his work.
 A short while later, the Claimant returned to the work site in a state of extreme agitation, and approached the. foreman with an adz raised above his head, shouting profanities. The foreman tried to flee and take cover behind a tool house, but he could not outrun the Claimant. The foreman stopped and faced the Claimant. The Claimant swung the adz and missed the foreman, who ducked under the blow. The two men began to wrestle and during their struggle the Claimant punched the foreman in the face. The foreman managed to grab the Claimant and wrestle him to the ground. 4Taen the Claimant said he would cease fighting, the foreman released him. The Claimant walked away, muttering profanities, and he was seen kicking another employee as he left the work site.
                                    Case/Award No. 15

                                    Page Six

The Claimant's actions were nothing short of heinous. Although, the foreman's behavior demonstrated extreme indiscretion, and while it may be reasonably contended that such actions were provocative in the circumstances, this action by the foreman 'does not mitigate or justify the brutally violent actions of intentions of the Claimant. The foreman might have prevented the entire episode, if he had exercised mere common sense. However, the actions of the Claimant cannot be condoned. In this Board's view, the Claimant's violent actions represent behavior that no civilized society should have to tolerate. And, the Claimant's fellow employees should not be subject to the potentiality of- such. future outbursts.
 In view"of the foregoing, this Board finds that the penalty of dismissal was commensurate with the seriousness of the proven offense. Accordingly, the cla=m must be denied.

      AWARD: Claim denied.


R. Radke, Carrier Member W. E: LaRue, Organization Member

              Richard R. Rasher, Chairman and Neutral Member


September 20, 1981 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania