PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3445
Award Number:~,55

 Case Number; 55,

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE





STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Claimant, J. D. Honeycutt, Rt. 1, Box 41, Lancing, TN 37770-9705, was dismissed from service on November 7, 1987 for alleged conduct unbecoming an employe. Claim was filed fn accordance with Railway Labor Act and agreement provisions. Employes request he be

 reinstated with pay for all,t$.me lost with vacation and seniority,

FINDINGS



attend a formal investigation on charges that he had exhibited conduct
 unbecoming an employe. That investigation was conducted on December 7,
 1987. Evidence adduced at the investigation led to Claimant's dismissal by
 letter dated December 23, 1987.

                                        3LR4s-ss-


dismissed for just cause under the Agreement; and if not, what should the remedy be.

 The charges against Claimant stem from a series of incidents during September, October and November 1987. These include the events of November 4 and 6, 1987 when Claimant refused repeated instructions to wear his safety glasses, used obscene language and gestures and refused instructions to cease doing so. Claimant also spoke in a derogatory and threatening manner to T&S Supervisor B. E. Carlyle. Prior to these November incidents, Claimant had insulted Laborer H. L. Reed, behaved in a manner which led three gang members including Reed to request not to work with him, and repeatedly made obscqne,gestures and comments to both c9-workers and supervisors. 'In addition, Claimant engaged in horseplay by greasing the buttons on some machinery which he admitted was dangerous, and, by implication, in violation of,the Carrier's rules.

 The position of the Organization is that Claimant was dismissed without just cause because he is not culpable as charged. Claimant denied using obscene language and stated that theobbscene gestures were made in jest. The Organization maintains that Claimant has been singled out for reprimand about not having on his safety glasses, as other employes were not wearing theirs.

 The position of the Carrier is that it had just cause to dismiss Claimant. The Carrier cites Claimant's repeated disrespectful actions toward his fellow employes and supervisors (be they obscene language and

                            2

gestures, threats, or offensive or derogatory statements) as proof of his. unbecoming conduct. The Carrier also contends that Claimant's behavior is. unbecoming in those instances where he has been unsafe or, engaged in

                                                      horseplay. The Carrier maintains that dismissal is appropriate and that it .,,"·,' e,, ii cannot be expected to retain employes who are abusive.


After review of the entire, record, the Board finds that Claimant was' dismissed for just cause.

                                                      t


    The Carrier has established by substantive credible evidence in the , -

record that Claimant repeatedly engaged in unsafe behavior and prohibited
 horseplay. Moreover, Claimant's repeated use of obscene language and
 gestures as well as his abusive manner to co-workers and superiors has been
 conclusively proven. These actions are wholly unacceptable in the in
 dustrial workplace. Mutual respect and concern for the safety and dignity
 of co-workers and superiors are essential for the smooth operation of the
 Carrier's operation. Claimant's disruptions were sufficiently severe and
 recurring as to warrant dismissal.- The Carrier's actions were neither
 arbitrary, capricious nor discriminatory.

            i ,-


                            3,