s discharge for the following chargers










pLB 2420 - -2- AWARD ?30. 21




The disciplinary termination van imposed on claimant because at his alleged participation in as illegal and unauthorized

 strike at Carrier's Canton, Ohio, Maintenance of Way Shop on September
 28 and 29, 1978, by members of Local 3050 of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of way Employees employed there,

 tie have described the general circusnstaacas of thin strike and picketing situation revealed at the hearings thereon in our previous Award Ha, 1, as wall as our opinion on certain procedural and substantive questions raised by.Organization these as well as here.-
concerning Clai3aant°s culpability in this situation as a striker and
 pic3teter, the Hoard does noL.fiad Carrier to have acted contrary to a reasonable evaluation of the evidence put before it, is having decided that Claimant was not only one of the unauthorized strikers on the 2 days in question but that he made appearances among groups of strikers at locations and with posture and demeanor which marked him as an active abetter and augmenter of. the striking and picketing efforts. He realize that trial officer and Carrier had to make credibility choices in reaching their decisions,, but we find no basis fox deciding that
 PLH 2420 -3- AWARD NO. 21

 such choices were not deservedly made.

 In respect to the contention and to testimony that Claimant - and others -were intimidated into striking by two visitors from the N&W Railroad strikers, we must support Carrier in its skepticism that these taro individuals could be and were objectively conceived by Claimant and others as having the coercive power to command the unwilling obedience of so large a group, including Claimant. We support Carrier, also. in distinguishing between those who might genuinely have had such fears and consequently went and stayed home and those who made appearances as part of the picketers at additional times at plant entrances on these two days. In Claimant's case, there has been a substantia' shoving.that he added to his striker role that of a ulcketer at at east three times other than nis starting rimes, at ooth his usual entrance and another one. One of these appearances was as late ae I1t15 PM on September 28, 1978, after having t; - ,rr.v~-? at tn.- .-one at 3t2U PM.

 In the course of his testimony, Claimant admitted that he vas advised by his union representative that the strike was illegal. The fact that he did not return to work (in spite of the official having allegedly expressed fears of doing so himself) adds to his culpability.

 Like others, Claimant refused an order from management to end his oarticiaation in the illegal stoppage. As in the case of
 ka'2420 ·4~ AWARD NO. 21

 others, this must be added in as a significant increment of culpability.

 A consideration deserving credibility attention is raised by the testimony concerning the remarks allegedly made by Carrier witness Barkhurst in trial ante roost in which he is alleged to have expressed hostile purposes in the testimony he was about to give concerning Clainant. Hearing officer had the right to choose Barkhurst·s denial as more credible than that of his two accuser witnesses. It is well settled that we cannot and should not substitute ourselves for hearing officers in making such credibility choices. But we must add that even if the statements attributed to Barkhurst by Claimant's witnesses were to be fully believed, it could reasonably be taken as a declaration of Barkhurat's.satisfaction in having the opportunity to reveal the truth concerning Claimant. The fact that this thought was so viciously expressed by Mr. Barkhurstnight very well have been prompted by the sting of the hostile personal manner in which, according to Barkhurst, Claimant had reacted to his request to move his truck off company property. This Board in no way condones such countering rancor and hostility as reflected in the alleged Barxhurst statement outside the trial room, but we do not find a basis in them on which to fault Carrier for not finding them either to have discredited Barkhurstes credibility concerning the determinant factors on which Carrier acted or to impeach the total trial evidence adding up to a justified finding of guilt on the charges for which Claimant was tried.
 PLB 2420 .5- AWARD NO. 21

 We are of the opinion that, in sum, Carrier did not abuse its authority for insisting on the honoring of an existing collective agreement by one who was a constituent party to it or by imposing the penalty of termination in reaction to this individual's aggressive participation in the costly, unauthorized, illegal activities in destruction of such contractual commitment. We conclude that Carrier must be supported in having found Claimant guilty in degree and kind of the actions charged so as to justify the discharge penalty imposed.

          Claim denied.'


      - LOUIS YA A, CHAIRMAN S NEUTRAL


FR WURP , ., TION I'~HER

 N.M. BERNER.`t%RR3ER MEMBER
 DATED

` tr