_PARTIES Brotherhood of M:r·ntenance of Way Employees
 "0 and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company

 STATEMENT "?. That the Carrier violated the Agreement when on August 21, 1979 it
 0r CLAIM susoeneed Track Foreman ,.ames L. Norman from 'ts sarvice for 1 nrr
 iOd eighteen (18) working days (which 'nclua^d the holiday of Sop-em-
            ber 3, 1979) on charges not sustained by the hearin^.. recorc, saic' _

            action being unduly harsh and in abuse of discretion,.


            2. That-all charges against Track Foreman James L. .Norman be rescinded, thus clearing his personal record: that he be paid for all loss of time suffereo oy hi rc as a result of the suspenslor., :hat he be p;"id for the work performed by him on August 21, 1979 when it was required to comnle;e Company form. No. 20611 and the book,ceeping work perform- - ed for the Gang."


CT

 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 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 This is a companion case to the dispute involved in Award No. 25 of this Board. The r-oreman herein was the second man involved in the altercation described in the ear"^er hwir-_'. The facts described in Award No. 25 relates to the identical. dispute and must be consioered as applicable.

 Petitioner argues, in this instance, that Claimant was pre.4ud-,ed by Carrier when 'ne wa< removed from service ?ending the formal hearing with respect to the incident in cues':`-n^.. Further the Petitioner claims that during the period of susoension and throughout the entire period, Claimant was allowed to maintain certain Carrier reports for which he ::c.: not compensated.

 Carrier argues that that port^^r of the claim which relates `_o withholding C!,111--ant frog
                                                        .n 1


                              - -


service pending the formal hearing was consistent with the Provisions of Rule-4,1 (a) of the Agreement which provides in Part:

          "',;here c·rc'nrstances ·44rdicate an employee s%euld not he oerwitted to cont'nue in service he may be suspendee perc`rig an.noesc aariun.'


Carrier argues that an altercation between the Foreman and one of those employees working for him is a type of offense for which suspension is indicated.

 There is no question with respect to the facts concerning the basic altercation which took place. Claimant, in particular as a Foreman, was even more culpable for engaging in an altercation with one of the employees working for him. Whether or not there was. provocation is immaterial. There is no evidence to 4ndicate ore.udgement on the Part - of Carrier in terms of the suspension prior to investigation involved in this dispute. Carrier properly acted within the provisions of Rule 45 (a).supra.

 The question of the alleged work performed by Claimant subsequent to the suspension may not be considered by this Board for two reasons: first, there is no specific evidence concerning the work performed and the time involved and secondly, such a claim is a time claim which does not belong in a discipline dispute such as this.

 In view of the seriousness of an altercation such as this particularly on the part of supervision and for the reasons indicated in Award No. 25, this claim must be denied.
 AWARD
 Cldim denied.
 I.: . L ieberman, Neutral -ChairTran

J6 9~-

Carrier Member Employee Member
 July , 1980 .3 9 - /hv D. , G _

 San Francisco, CA