PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:
 The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad and
 The Lake Erie and Eastern Railroad Companies. )
 vs ) Case No. 1.

 Brotherhood of Maintenance of )
 Way Employes. )
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Claim on behalf of Gerald Hansen that he be restored to service as a Trackman and compensated for all monetary losses sustained as a result of his dis. missal from the serviosof the Company on February 16, 1979, as a result of hearing held at Pittsburgh, Pa. March 2, 1979. OPINION OF THE BOARD:
 Mr. Gerald L. Hanson, the Claimant, entered the service of the Carrier as a Trackman on September 6, 1972, and continued in such service with a clear discipline record until February 16, 1979, when he was held out of service pending in vestigation. On February 20, 1979, Carrier addressed the following letter to Claimant:




The investigation was held as scheduled. A copy of the transcript was made a part of the record. h careful reading of the transcript and the entire record indicates Claimant was given a fair and impartial hearing. He was represented by two officers of his Organization, was given opportunity to produce witnesses in his behalf, which he chose not to do, and he and his representatives were given full opportunity to examine and cross examine Carrier's witnesses, which they did extensively.
 After the investigation, on March 8, 1979, Carrier by letter formally dismissed Claimant from service.
 Claim was filed in behalf of Claimant by the Organization and properly progressed through the appeals procedures of the agreement to the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such matters without success. Thus the dispute was submitted by mutual agreement to this Board for final and binding adjudication in accordance with Section 3, Second of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
 The dispute involves Carrier's charges that Claimant used physical force and vile profane language against his foreman, Emmett Pepe,and that he physically pushed and verbally threatened the life of Supervisor Beissel.
 The record clearly shows as well as admitted by Claimant that he physically grabbed Fbreman Pepe by the shoulder and called him a profane name, too vile to use in this decision. The second incident involving the physical pushing and verbally treatening Supervisor Beissel occurred in the supervisor's small office. After the first incident Foreman Pepe went to Supervisor Beissel's office and while reporting the incident, Claimant Hansen came into
- 3 - the office uninvit_d. Beissel told the Cla"nt that no one was going to talk to his foreman like that and he was holding him out of service. Claimant responded by saying "no one was man enough to talk to him or go outside with him''. Claimant came at Beissel and pushed him back against his chair. The record shows a "nose to nose" confrontation. Assistant Track Supervisor Vaccaro was present in the office and witnessed the altercation and so testified at the investigation. The record also clearly shows Claimant threatened Beissells Life. Local Chairman Greco came on the scene during the altercation and testified at the investigation that Claimant said, "You fire me and you wife will so to a funeral".
 Claimant and his representative argued in defense that Claimant was in a highly emotional state of mind because of family problems and that he was frustrated over an unresolved grievance with his supervisors over the use of junior employes on overtime for which he contended that he should have been called. Claimant had filed a claim for the work but had not received a response as promptly as he thought he should have. This was the basis of his confrontration with Foreman Pape.
 The collective bargaining Agreement between the parties provides an effective orderly procedure for handling grievances. It includes time limits within which the parties are required to respond; the Organization forfeits the claim if it defaults, and if the Carrier defaults it must honov and pay the claim as submitted. It also provides for compulsory final and binding arbitration if the grievance is not settled by the parties, all of which is time consuming. The time consumed in progressing his.'
 overtime claim may have frustrated Claimant ` ·t this frustration and his emotional state of mind caused by his family problems are not justification fos the physical and verbal abuse of his supervisors.
          The record clearly shows Carrier proved its case

The question now to determine is does the punishment fit the crime. In this industry an employee found guilty of charges as serious as these, verbally and physically assulting supervisors, is normally subject to permanent dismissal . But here we have an employee with a clear unblemished record who readily admitted his errors in the investigation and offered public apology to those he offended. The Board is impressed by his record and especially by the sincerity demonstrated"by Claimant when he made his plea before this Board when he again offered to publicly .apologize.to those he offended. For these
 reasons the Board determines that a suspension of three years and two . months is an appropriate.penalt7 for his violative actions against his supervisors and thereby awards reinstatement with full seniority and all other rights restored: Additionally,becaase of the seriousness of these incidents the Board orders this decision be made a part of Claimants.. personal record. - ' .. FINDINGS: In line with the above, the discipline assessed is modified from a dismissal:, to discipline in the form of actual suspension from service without pay. AWARD: Claim ssatained'tn.accordance with the above Opinion and Pfndings~

 Labor Mete

 May h/ ,, 1982
g. Robert Lowry
 Chairman & Neutral

 Richard D . hones Carrier Member

          3oh3-