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.
The record reveals that -Claimant herein, a Trackman who had employed by Carrier in 1965, was removed from service for being insubordinate, quarrelsome and vicious to his Supervisor on Ju1=, 13, 1.987, according to the charges. and-was found quiltv and thereafter dismissed. The record further reveals that on Jul-, 1.3, the day in question, Claimant was to have traveled Trom
Soringfield, Colorado to Ulysses. Kansas and was to stav in Ulysses. He was given permission by his Foreman to drive his personal vehicle so that he and the truckdriver could return home each evening. Claimant left his section gang and went to his nome where apparently he had left his keys. The gang, together with his Supervisor and a Foreman, left the Springfield depot at about 3:15 a.m. Upon passing Claimant's home in Springfield, the Supervisor noticed Claimant's vehicle parked at his residence. At
instructed the Claimant to proceed to Ulysses, as he alas previously told (after listening to his explanation). According to Carrier's testimony, Claimant behaved .in an insubordinate, disrespectful manner to the Supervisor who then notified Claimant that he was being taken out of service for being insubordinate and quarrelsome. The Foreman's testimony corroborated that of the
was particularly true. accordina to Carrier, in view of the seriousness of the charges and the fact that Claimant had a Poor past record which included ilPrior incidents of discipline. including one prior dismissal.
Petitioner argues that the discipline in this case was clearlv unwarranted. There is no question but that Claimant had the right to use his own automobile and the entire incident which resulted in the dismissal lasted no more than a minute or a minute and a half. at best. Furthermore. according to the Organization. Carrier ianored the fact that "it takes two to tanao" in that the supervisor chose to harass Claimant for reasons which are unknown. It was the Track Supervisor's conduct which precipitates thE-, incident and Claimant should not have been Penalized as Carrier did in this instance. He was clearIv not wholly responsible for the incident or the argument.
Without much elaboration. it is apparent that the hearing officer in this investigation had the right to determine the credioilitv of the witnesses. He chose to credit the Carrier SuperVi=_or s testimony with respect to the Particular incident. Thus. from the standpoint of the evidence, there is no doubt but that Claimant was indeed quarrelsome and abusive to his Supervisor on the day in question. However. the Board must observe that Petitioner i<_ =orrecf. in that there warm obviousl,, some harassment orr, the Par ;. of the Supervisor with respect to Claimant. Furtnermore. as tnc
Board views it, the particular discipline accorded Claimant in this case was excessive. Even with Claimant's poor past record. the circumstance of this particular incident did not warrant dismissal. It is the Hoard's view that a more appropriate remedy would have been a significant suspension for Claimant's actions.