on assignment Y15015 on February 13, 1992 when, while ope mtina through the Dirt Road Track, Claimant's rain was involved in a collision with En^._cr~-.e ?=14 on Job Y 103 at ~ar^det Yard.
Ordinarily, our funcucn is :o examine the record to dewi:.ine who-`.er the Car--^er's disciplinary action was supported by substantial e·rd'T^.ce. Although the parties have vigcrcus:y ad-
dressed that issue, because of lectors written by Claimant, we are unable to perform our ordinari function. In levers written by Claimant dated April 11 and 25, 1992 (Car. Ex hs. E and G), Claimart effectively admitted engaging in rrssconduct and specifically sought leniency from the Carrier:
I have learned from my mistakes . ... I wish chat you could show me some mercy... I need my job and I am asmng for any lienacy [sic] that you can show me.
It is well-established that it is not this Board's func:ion to dis-oense lenie7.cv. That func-ion belones :o :::e
PLB 5392, Award 6Carner.l Given Claimant's clear admission of misconduct and his request for leniency, we have no authority to determine in the ordinary fashion that the decision to impose discipline was improper.
However, although Claimant's requests for leniency deprive this Board of the ability to determine in the usual manner whet.'ier discipline was apprepr:ate, the imposition of leniency is nevertheless subject to review by us but under the limited standard of detet-ini:.g whether the Carrier's actions were arbitrary or capricious?
or excuse." Here, we are, not that the evidence supports a finding u"
the Carrier's actions in determining whether to ,grant leniency were non-arbitrary. The record shows that the collision involved in this case occurred in Hamlet Yard as a result of non-coordinated movements. Yet, in determining whether or not to grant leniency, the Carrier made Claimant pass a test on road territory (which Claimant did not do to the Carrier's satisfaction). See Division Superintendent Davis' letter of Aug'ist 28, 1992 (Car. Exh. N):
We recognize that there is an overlap of sImlls between road and yard service. We further recognize that Claimant has performed road serrice. But, this record nevertheless does not sufficiently explain why a road test was given as the basis for leniency when the collision was a result of movements attached to yard service. We cannot find a rational basis or justification for the type of test that the Carrier used to determine whether to grant leniency.
The Carrier has great discretion in determining the qualifications of its employees and it is not the function of rhisBoard to substitute our judgment for that of the Crier. But, the basis for the Carrier's decisions must at least be explained. That was not sufficiently done
in this case. We therefore are compelled to find that the Carrier's basis for determining whether or not to ;rant leniency was arbitrary.The remedy in this matter shall be limited. Given the context in which this case arises, we can only require that Lie Carier make its determination of whether to return Claimant to service through use of reasonable criteria. In this case, we shall pernit Claimant's return to serrice, but only if he satisfactorily demonstrates to the Carrier through a test of his yard abilities that he can safely operate the necessary equipment Claimant's return to service is furhe: continent upon his successful completion of all other qualifying require^eats, including physical examinations. Given the fact that Claimant has effectively admitted to the charged misconduct as demonstrated by his requests for leniency, should Claimant successfully qualify, reinstatement shall be without loss of seniority or other rights and benefits, but shall be without compensation for time lost s
The fact that C:aimant tray have agreed to those terms does not change our conclusion. The terms must nevertheless be reasonable. T:vs is not a case like Award 3 of :his Board where she agreed upon imposition of compliance with =A? requirements as a condition preceent to ream to service was not unreasonable in light of the demonstrated misconduct by the employer. We cannot say the same in this case.