PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3530
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF CLAI!
Award Number: 85
 Case Number: 85

 BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

 AND

 NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

 Trackman R. A. ,Hilton, 1459 Lafayette Blvd., N. W., Roanoke, VA. 24017, was dismissed from service on August 29, 1986 for alleged insubordination. Claim was filed by the Employes in accordance with Railway Labor Act and, agreement provisions. Employes request reinstatement'with pay for all lost time with vacation and seniority right's unimpaired.

 FINDINGS
Claimant entered the Carrier's service on August 31, 1981.

 By letter dated ,June 10, 1986, Claimant was notified to attend a formal

 investigation concerning charges that he was "insubordinate, verbally abusive and [made] vulgar and threatening remarks directed at Assistant

 Foreman L. W. Wilkerson ... in violation of ... Rule 1713:" Claimant was held out of service commencing June 12. At the Carrier's direction, the

 investigation was twice postponed and took place August 12, 1986. By letter
 dated August 29, 1986, Claimant was dismissed based on the evidence adduced at the formal.investigation.

 The question 'to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant was dismissed for just cause under. the Agreement; and if not, what should the,

 remedy be..

 On June 9 , 1986, Claimant reported for duty at the section headquarters at Roanoke Terminal., Various groups o£ employee were.praparing to be transported by the Carrier's vehicles to job sites. As Claimant entered one vehicle, he made a, comment which Wilkerson asked him to repeat. Claimant delivered a tirade,'o£ vulgar names at Wilkerson. Wilkerson'instructed Claimant to go to the office of the Division Engineer-Maintenance. While in the office, Assistant Terminal supervisor R. S. Brandl heard 'Claimant say he was "going to. get him." Claimant was very upset and agitated. His fists were balled up, tears were in his eyes and he was shaking.

 Rule 1713 provides that:

 1713. Negligende in handling Company business, sleeping on duty, wilful neglect of duty, viciousness, desertion, dishonesty, insubordination, immorality, disloyalty, making false statement, or concealing facts concerning matters under investigation are sufficient cause for dismissal.

 An employee lying down or fn a slouched position with eyes closed or with eyes covered or concealed will be considered sleeping.

 The position o£ the Organization is that Claimant was dismissed without just cause because the formal investigation included areas of inquiry beyond 2

those stated in the June l0.charging letter. Specifically, the Organization objects to questions during the Investigation regarding Claimant's work habits. This conduct, the organization contends, denied the Organization proper notice of the charges and denied Claimant due.process and an

 impartial hearing The Organization maintains that it was unable to prepare ,
 a proper defense of Claimant and that the hearing was a "cosmetic mockery."
 The Organization ,admits that Claimant used abusivelanguage toward Wilker-

 son but cdntends,:'that dismiss ',
 $~ was an 'inappropriate'and inconsistent punishment because there are instances in which fighting (i.e., a more serious offense) has not been punished by dismissal.
abusive, vulgar verbal,assault'on Wilkerson and a verbal threat against .
 Wilkerson, and that dismissal is, an appropriate remedy. The Carrier, cites,
 the testimony that Claimant verbally lashed out and threw his hard hat and
 lunch box. The Carrier contends that Claimant's behavior was not only
                                                      of


vicious, insubordinate, disloyal and negligent, in violation of Rule 1713, but that Claimant exhibited signs of instability. The Carrier maintains further that dismissal is an appropriate discipline because Claimant's explosive, abusive and hostile behavior presents a safety hazard to'his fellow employes, his supervisors and the public.

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

 The Carrier has established by substantial credible evidence in the '.

                        3

3530-SS

 record that Claimant engaged in an unprovoked, abusive, vulgar tirade against Wilkerson.,, Claimant's-throwing his hard hat and lunch box were violent and potentially dangerous. On the more serious charge of the alleged threat to Wilkerson, the' Carrier has not shown that Wilkerson was the object of Claimant's hostile.mutterings in the office. Nevertheless, Claimant's tirade against Wilkerson constitutes insubordination and the

 accompanying circumstances.prove the severity of'the violation of Rule 1713'. Under the', terms b£ Rule 1713',Aismissal~was appropriate and justifiable.'., The Carrier has not been arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. Rather, it has enforced its rules in a valid effort to maintain order and a safe

 working environment.

 As to the question of notice, the charging letter was adequate and the discussion of Claimant's work habits did not viol ate'his due process rights. An investigation such as this one contemplates the development of some background information. The work habits inquiry was appropriate in that context.

 4
 Claim deified.

 Date: /uivE

 Neutral Member

 ar
    11-19


    rie


llOl- R~ I

 rgani ation Member