Case No. 26 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Appeal of the Carrier's dismissal of Claimant Timothy B. Home on charges that the
 Claimant allegedly violated Carrier Operating Rule H, Furnishing Information and
 Conduct, in connection with the Claimant's becoming engaged in a physical
 uitercatioii with anot her employee.
 FINDINGS:
 By letter dated December 21, 2005, the Claimant was notified to attend a fonnal hearing and investigation on charges that the Claimant allegedly had violated Carrier Operating Rule H, Furnishing Information and Conduct, in connection with an incident in which the Claimant became engaged in a physical altercation with another employee. After two postponements, the investigation was conducted on January 10, 2006. By letter dated January 26, 2006, the Claimant was notified that as a result of the investigation, _h_e had been found guilty as charged and was being dismissed from the Carrier's service. The </rgamzatlnn thereafter fled a eiaiin ou, bi.half of the Clalnlalll, ellalleflglng tile Carrier's decision to discharge him. The Carrier denied the claim.
 T he Carrier initially contends that the transcript clearly establishes that the discipline was warranted and appropriate. The Carrier asserts that the Claimant did not deny the incident as described by other witnesses, and there can be no doubt that the Claimant's actions on December 19, 2005, were intended to cause serious injury to the 1
 other employee, the Claimant's son. The Carrier emphasizes that the Claimant tried to ~usti y' his actions by stating, "i do not tolerate disrespect from my children."
 The Carrier maintains that the discipline in question was warranted. The Carrier points out that the Claimant committed a serious violation of the law and clearly intended to cause serious physical harm to the other employee. The Carrier argues that its rules do not allow for this type of behavior. The Carrier insists that, in the interests of the safety and welfare of its employees, it must react appropriately when this type of violence occurs.
 The Carrier ultimately contends that the instant claim should be denied in its entirety.
inappropriate, and non-progressive in nature. The Organization maintains that the proper
 purpose of discipline is not to inflict punishment, but to rehabilitate, correct, and guide
 employees in the proper performance of their assigned tasks. The Organization
 emphasizes that Board Awards consistently have held that the severity of the punishment
 must be reasonably related to the gravity of the offense.
 The Organization asserts that, while recognizing the Carrier's concern over the alleged infraction, the penalty of dismissal is improper, arbitrary, harsh, and nonprogressive in nature. The Organization argues that the Claimant was dismissed for his first offense, which clearly is non-progressive discipline ;xrishnwt a 'han,e t, roh~b'1;4-f_

The Organization emphasizes that the Board consistently has recognized the principle of
                                                    "PL 8 b a Lo


progressive discipline as being both essential and important in the railroad industry. The vrga111zaUCn insists mat mere can De no question that the Uarrier's decision to dismiss the Claimant was unwarranted, inappropriate and non-progressive in its application.
 The Organization ultimately contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety.
 The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this Board.
 This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to -import the finrlinu thnr the Claimant xxrna guilty of violating Carrier Operating Rule H when he admittedly became engaged in a

 ...L....,:....1 aiWl~aaIUII _ aL _ _.a_ _ , IJIIyJIGQl Q1LG1G0.11VL1 W1U1 CL11VU1C1 Cn1plVyee.

 Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. Thus Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its actions to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
 It is fundamental that engaging in violent behavior is sufficient grounds for dismissal, even on a first offense. This Board is not unmindful of the necessity of progressive discipline. However, there are some offenses which do not require that an employee receive lesser forms of discipline before he or she is discharged. Engaging in a

 nhvciraj u1ti-rrntinn xxTith annfhA,-A-i-oo- .. _4~41-_..CC,...._.,.,. mu-_-r-
 L.__~ ____ _____-__-r-a . , v, v. ..ui~ivyw xo vix~ vi uIVJG V11GIL~GJ. 111GLGLViG, 011.7

 Board cannot find that the Carrier acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it

                            3

                                              PL B (00q3 'A rd a c~


terminated the Claimant.
 The claim will be denied. AWARD:

      The claim is denied.


                        I v 11


                    PETER .MEYE S

                    Neutral emb


O IZATION ER CAME M MBER

 DATED: _:S- -~Lf-?")
4