PARTIES Brotherhood of Haintenanceof Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE: Southern Pacific 'Transportation-Company
 STATEMENT _ "i. That the Carrier violated the cur
 OF CLAIM: rent Agreement when it dismissed
 Machine Operater E. H. Purdue. Said
 action being excessive, unduly harsh
 and in abuse of discretion.
 That the Carrier reinstate Claimant
 to his former position with seniority
 ,in d all other rights restored un
 unimpaired with pay for- all loss of
 earnings suffered and his record
 cleared."
 FINDINGS

Upon the whole record_ after hearing., the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-4:ib and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.


The record indicates that Claimant herein was cngaaed in an altercation with another employee, Mr. Chapa, both of then working on a tie gang a1: the time. The altercation took place at

VL(3c
 I - NO

 the end OT a lunch hour smasned on the other

 altercation was underway, arguing and he refused

 Assistant informed

 hoadmastor.

 him to stop

 of service. There was
 Claimant herein had been

 and dealt with a window which had oeDr. employee s tMr. Chaoa:s) car. While the

 the Foreman instructed Claimant td stoo

 to

 who

 do so. A few moments later the
 also had witnessed the altercation,

 and when he refused to stop he took him but

 additional testimony to the effect that

 involved in a series of incidents with

 fellow employees, including harassing them, cursing them and .in general tiullvinn them. TL is also noted that the other employee who engaged in the altercation, Mr. Chapa, was also charged with

 various infractions and investigated after

 from service.

 insttbordanate, entering of hostility and, as a result of these

 unfavorable news publicity involving the Company. He

 Claimant

 was charged with being quarrelsome, m tG an altercation and committing -ac-t=_

 acts, incurring

 was also

 charged with aggravating and intimidating and harassing fellow
 employees while on duty.

 having been removed

The Petitioner insists that Claimant was not the provocateur in this situation while his opponent was -the- aggressor, having thrown a rock at Claimant. Thus from the Petitioner's standpoint, Claimant: was acting merely in self- defense in his actions during the--· altercation. -Thus, Petitioner insists that the penalty


assessed was inappropriate under all the circumstances.Carrier.

                                                :~ u3q -n~


on the other hand. indicates that the conduct of Claimant in this particular series of circumstances was intolerable and warranted the firmest and ultimate type of discipline. Carrier notes that it has the obligation to provide a safe workplace for its employees, and in this instance the actions of Claimant could not be condoned.


As the Hoard views it, the charges were amply established by the
 testimony produced in the course of the hearing. There is no
 doubt but that Claimant was insubordinate in refusing to heed
 both his own Supervisor's, as well as the Assistant- R;oadmaster-s
 insistance on stopping the altercation. In addition, there was
 unrebutted testimony indicating his previous conduct in
 threateninu and harassing fellow employees. Thus, as the Hoard
 views .Lt, Carrier seas amply justified in its conclusion that he
 was guilty of the specific charges. The discipline should not be
 disturbed.
 a439-I~I~

 Claim denied.

              l . ~1. Lieberman. INeu tral-Chaa rman


C. . I=oa e~ EIlayee Member F;. J Smo Carrier Clober

 San Fransico. California
 1989