F_'A_R_Tl_ES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TD and
 DISPUTE: Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
 S_TAT_E_MEN_T "1. That the Carrier's decision to remove
 OF CLAIM: Southern Division T rackman J.
 Alexander from service was harsh and
 uniust.
 2. That the Claimant shall be returned to
 service with vacation. seniority and
 all other rights unimpaired and that he
 will be made whole for all time lost."
 FINDINGS --

Upon the whole record, after- hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meanino 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. ,


Claimant was dismissed from service on January 20. 19137. followina an investigation. He had been charmed with violation of certain Carrier rules due to his hav;na pled ouiltv to aaaravattc assault charges and being sentenced to sir. nears unadiudicated probation by a disrict court in Bell County. Texas. The record

a-nY-/7a


indicates that Claimant on November 2. 1986 had cutting and stabbing another individual and also

 of methamphetamines. The record indicates that

 was dropped upon Claimant pleading guilty to the assault charges. A newspaper article with respect to this matter indicated that he pled guilty to the assault charges'stemminq from a November fight in which another individual was cut with a knife on the shoulders and neck. The record also specifies that the Claimant

 been attested for for possession

 the drug char-qe

 had been disciplined by Carrier on

 one prior dismissal. In that dismissal he

 14 prior occasions, including

 was reinstated on a

 leniency basis in 1963. At the time of the instant dismissal
 Claimant had SCE demerits outstanding on his record.

Carrier maintains that at the time of this particular incident. Claimant would have been dismissed had he received merely LO demerits for the offense, in view of his past record. However; that was more lenient than was appropriate in the circumstances of this particular matter. According to Carrier, Claimant was found to have violated Carrier's rules after a fair investioation


and was appropriately disciplined.

 Petitioner insists

 unduly hat-sly
 uruani-ration

indicates Claimant s


capricious and

 maintains tha that -Carrier was

 actions. Nor

 that Carrier's actions in

 t

 in abuse of discretion. -the
 there- was no evidence whatever- to

 discredited in

 was there an·/

 any fashion bv

 evidence d.isout.irm

Claimant's testimonv that he was beino attacked by the other individual at the time of the fight.


It is this Board's view that not only was Claimant's conduct one which could subject Carrier to criticism but. more sionificantiv. was one in which his conduct was certainly unbecomino to an employee particularly in this industry. Even more significantly. the Carrier is not under- an obligation to retain as an employee anyone who it has reason to believe may be dangerous to other employees. In this instance. Carrier's decision was amply supported by the evidence and its decision to dismiss Claimant may not be disturbed.


aWar:D

 1. M. Lieberman. Neutral-Chairman

 C. F. Foose. Emplo*ee Member . ~. C,armon. Carrier Member

 Chicago, Illinois
 October '1 . 198e