PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 TO and
 DISPUTE: Atchinson Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
 STATEMENT "1. That the Carrier`s decision to dismiss Western
 OF CLAIM: Mine Helper Wayne Goodman from its service was in
 violation of the Agreement, such action being
 arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious and without
 just cause.
 2. Claimant will now be restored to service of the
 Carrier -with seniority and all other rights
 restorer: and compensated for -all wage loss
 suffered."
 FINDINGS

Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the 2.silway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law $9-455 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.


The record indicates that Claimant Goodman was discharged by Carrier having been found guilty of threatening his Foreman wit`, bodily harm on May 12, 1936. Claimant, a Welder, was assisting his section Foreman on his gang on May 12 and they were working on


changing out a broken rai'. - _
                                                  -!6q


                                                      2


The evidence at, the investigation indicates--that-Claimant-raised
 the subject of whether indeed his Foreman Mr. Mende had crossed
 the picket line in the previous week as a result of -a strike of
 certain operating employees (UTU employees), It should be noted
 that- Claimant was a former union official and was particularly
 concerned with "solidarity and union -loyalty during a strike".
 Foreman Mende asked if it was true that the Maintenance of Way
 Employees had planned to strike on May 29. In the course of the
 discussion, Claimant asked the Foreman whether he planned to work
 if the Maintenance- of Way Employees went on strike.. -According to
 the records, the Foreman responded that he did not plan to work if
 that happened but, if there was an emergency and the co,rppany asked
 him to work, he would do so-:- According to Claimant, he then told
 the Foreman that he or -anybody else who would cross -the picket
 line in the case of a strike by the Maintenance--of Shay Employees
 would be hurt- The testimony of, the _For-eman supported by the
 testimony of the Assistant Foreman and one of the-other welders in
 the gang was that the Claimant told the Foreman that he had a 44
 magnum pistol plus a .210 grain -bullet and that if the Foreman or
 anybody else crossed the -picket line they -would be killed.
 Specifically, he threatened to kill the- Foreman if he crossed the
 picket line. The discussion was rather Keated__and both of them
 were shouting at each other and the Foreman,walked_away,after the
 discussion had continued, in order to break it up.
                                                ~~p-i (oqr


                                                      3


The crux of the matter is the credibility of the witnesses at the investigation. The Hearing Officer determined that the story related by the Foreman, the Assistant Foreman and the Welder were credible and that of Mr. -Goodman with respect to what he had said was not. Therefore, the Carrier determined that the -conduct of Mr. Goodman on the days in question was intolerable and the decision was made that he be terminated.


The record also reveals that Mr. Goodman had- a record which included a number of prior disciplines including one dismissal and a return to service by Award No. 62 of this Board, but, in that instance, with no compensation for time loss since he -was found partly guilty of the charges.


It is quite clear that the threat to -kill a supervisor (or any other employee) is sufficient ground fur an employer to discharge an employee. That conclusion is universally accepted. In this instance, the entire matter rests on the matter of credibility. This Board has, as has- been said repeatedly, no ability or jurisdiction to determine issues of credibility. That function is reserved to the Hearing Officer. In this instance, the Hearing Officer determined that the Foreman and the other- two witnesses who testified in corroboration of his story were-,credible, and Claimant was not- Thus, Carrier's determination that Mr. Goodma~; was guilty was based on credible testimony and support of that

,0P-1'7q-L (n9

 position. Procedural questions raised by the Petitioner in this
 matter are not supported by the record and, therefore, the claim

 must be denied.

 AWARD
Claim denied.

 ___4__=___________----_-_____~_~_
 I. M. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman

 G . Garmon
 Carrier Member

 ..4_y_.._ _,.c era
 C. F. F_s__aose
 Employee Member

 Chicago, Illinois
 JAY /Z_ 1988_