UNITED TR=sPORTATICN L2yION
 vs.
 MxyUFACTLTRf-?-S RAIL'dAY COi-T'0Y

 STATEYO3T OF CLAItii (Claim 11-81D) Claim of Yardman P. E. Prpor that be
 paid for all time and benefits lost that he would have
 earned on the Manufacturers Railway Company between June 1,
 1981, and his date of reinstatement to service and that he
 be paid for attending the hearing held the afternoon of
 June 10, 1981 and that he be reinstated to service immedi
 ately and his record be cleared of all charges set forth
 in Superintendent R. L. Sheets' letter of June 3, 1981,
 FINDZGS: The Carrier and Employee involved in this dispute are respectively
 Carrier a.^.d Employee Athin the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
 This Board has jurisdiction over the dispute and the parties involved herein, and the parties were given due notice of hearing..
 Claimant -was notified by certified mail, he was ... "charged with alleged violation of Rule (n) of the 'General Rules for Employees, Manufactur ers Railway Company' and misconduct as employees of Manufacturers Railway Company while members of the 3100 FM crex of Sunday, May 31, 1981."
There are many conflicting statements contained in the transcript and the record is unclear as to where the incident occurredl nonetheless the record clearly shows the claimant and his fellow crew member did engage in an altercation and both participants suffered injury. This is readily admitted by the tyro individuals (P. E. Pryor and T. C; Ponciroli).
 PLB No. 3291

 Award 2; o. 8

 There is even accord between the altercation participants as to the len-th of time the fray lasted. There is no dispute as to the physical injury that resulted therefrom.
 We have given consideration to the contention that the investigation eras not fairly conducted and find this to be without support.
 the employee representatives objected to removal of claimants from service pending investigation; historically, this has been an acceptable practice under the Railway Labor Act procedures, especially when the incident deals with brawling, or other acts of unacceptable decorum.
 Under these circumstances, the question is whether permanent discharge is justified. At the time of the incident the record reflects that both claimants had less than three (3) years service as railroaders on this carrier; a short period of experience by industry standards..
 In light of all the evidence arid review of the whole record, the Board feels claimant should be returned to service with an opportunity to prove he can perform his duties without further misconduct.

OA. 6 "


C. A. Peacock, Neutral Member

 D. Harris, Carrier Member


 E. A. Thompson, Jr., Or ani~tian _
 t^ember

DISSE`tT OF CARRIER .'~UBER

TO AWARDS 7 A::D 9 (CASE .':OS . 7 A~'D 8)

PUBLIC LACE BOARD N0. 3291


Carrier member is shocked, to say the least, concerning the decision made by the neutral in the above awards.

 Claimants Ponciroli and Pryor are two young switchmen who, at the time,

 had less than three years' service with Manufacturers Railway Company.

 claimants testified at the disciplinary hearing that they had fought one another at or about 9:00 p.m. on Sunday, May 31, 1981, after they had been released from duty from their 3:00 p.m. assignment. The preponderance of evidence, including the testimony of Ponciroli, clearly showed that the fight occurred on the parking lot of Manufacturers Railway Company. Ponciroli sustained a fractured jaw and was hospitalized for four days. Pryor sustained contusions and abrasions. Both claimants testified at the disciplinary hearing that they had fought one another in front of Ponciroli's home about one month prior to the incident that occurred on May 31, 1981. Both claimants were withheld from service pending the hearing. Subsequent to the disciplinary hearing, they were found guilty and discharged from the services of Manufacturers Railway Company.
 Claimants testified and admitted that they had fought each other on two different occasions. The neutral indicates that both participants suffered injury. The neutral indicates that claimants had less than three years' service and should be returned to service with an opportunity to prove that they can perform their duties "without further misconduct." The fact that the claimants had less than three years of service and were not long-time employees of the Railway should have in itself caused the neutral to deny the claim.
 An interesting article appeared on May 25, 1983, in the Post-Dispatch newspaper in St. Louis, Missouri. The article in question states, in brief, that
 PLB No. 3291
 Dissent of Carrier Member
 To Awards 7 and &

 the Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled that the victim's parents can sue Monsanto Chemical Co. The court said that an employer ^av be held liable for negligent hiring or retention of an employee if the employer knew or should have known of the employee's "dangerous proclivities."
 The neutral, by the above awards, has now required that Manufacturers Railway Company retain two employees in its employ even though the two employees' "dangerous proclivities" are known. If the two employees have another fight and it occurs on Manufacturers Railway Company's property, will the union be liable for injuries sustained by the employees? Will the neutral be liable for injuries that may be sustained by the employees? Obviously, the answer is no; Manufacturers Railway Company will be responsible as a result of the neutral's erroneous awards. The awards should be disregarded and considered invalid.

 St. Louis, Missouri /.t Z /G
 June 6, 1983 Eldon D. Harris, Carrier Member
 Public Law Board No. 3291