" t)rguniiation requests that Mr. h. 1). Cla% he reinstated and that fie he credited tar all lost Railroad Retirement credits. %acution credits and that he he male %%hole. to include am and all lost overtime starting Jul) 3?. 3008 (the da% he %%as rcmuied from srnice until he's returned to sen-ice. Also any and all rcfcrcnce to this incident he stricken troln Mr. Cla%'s personal file "

Fhc Hoard. upon the %%hole record and on the c%idcnce. find, that the parties herein arc Carrier and I:rnplo%c%N %%ithin the tncaning ufthc Railk~a) I ahor Act. as wttcnded: that this Board is duly constituted by aure,--tnent r)ftlie pail i: ·: that the f3_ard ha:juri.dictiom over the disptae. and that the parties %%ere giN cn due notice ot'the hearing.

C'laimant's emplun tnent %%a, terminated after the Carrier Ibund him guilty ofeniaCging in liner .Iwciliekindsofmisconductduringucontrontalion%%iththe lerminalSupcrintendentatidlt%oollwr Carrier officials at liltord Yard in Atlanta on the afternoon 001,11% '"_. 2008. :fit the time of the incidew. claimant had more than I ; \ears uf,er\ice. Ilis \%urk record containk.d entries far fixe instances %crhsl discussion, fir minor matters and ,me I S-da\ actual suspension fhr the rise of prolanc language and conduct unbecoming an cmplo\cr. 'Ifie.auapensiun vas approximate]% 19 months previous to~ the incident in question. .

After listing the date. location. and approximate time of tire incident. the notice of imcxti-ation described Iftc four specific kinds uf(nisconduct a, follo%%s:

\ou laded to heha%c inaci\ il and courteous manner\%hendcaling

with fellow employees. you endanecrcd three company officcrS. attd damaged company property when you became violent and threw a company phone on the floor. and yott used profane and vulgar language when addressing ..." the three Carrier officials.

Accorditlg to the record. in brief summary. the terminal Superintendent questioned claimant's telephone ttsagc and its adverse impact on productivity while claimant vv:Ls serving as second ahii't Yardnlaster atTilford Yarns. !t is undisputed that claimant became loud and angry while he rose from his chair at his desk in the corner of the Yardmaster's office. He also grabbed the telephone unit tin the desk atld three it to the floor while wying words it) the efTect that it' the Tenllntal Sttltcrintcndrnt did not want him to use the phone. tllctl he should "... take the litekinb phone ..." out of the wall. After claimant quickly calmed down. he was removed l1rom service.

The ()rganiiation raised a number of procedural objections to the handling of the imeatigation. Our rcvicvv of the record Shows all of them to lack merit. for example, the notice of cfutrges _as sttflicicnlly detailed that claimant and his representatives had proper notice of the purpose ofthe invcstig:ition. Because the parties' Agreement doe, not require that the notice also cite the rules that might he invol% ed. the lack of rule citations in the notice did not make it lacking in NIx:cifics.

rurning it) tllc merits. tvc find the record it) contain substantial ev idence in support of the Carrtcr*s dctemlination that claimant did use prulane language and v%a,, not sit il and courteous during the interaction with the Cairier officials. llomevrr. we have not found an% cvidencc whatsoever that supports the Carrier', conclusion that claimant t%as also guilty of the two most serious :t~lx:cts of the charges: Ltldangering the three ('terrier officials and damaging compttmproperty.

Re~ardins: tfanlas:c t.l flee phone. accttrdinr~ to tltc l enllinal Sullerintendent'sovvtl trstinlotl)-. tile telephone unit was still operable after horn,: tht-ovvn to the flown Indeed. the transcript contain, recordings of telephone conversations during the rclcvant time frame that sleotl claimant was able it) conduct a business-related conversation %% ith the phone minutes after the incident. Moreot cr. the record does not estahltsh that the unit %%as chipped. cracked. or e%en scratched as a result of ch1itllatll's hehav ior. Accordingly. we arc compelled to find that the Carrier leas not sustained its hurdrn of proof to establish the etlttipmcm danl,ige aspect of the charges. In this regard. it is important it) he cogttiiant of'tlle significant distinction helvveen danlttLIt1L c~luipnlent ver::us abusin~t it: the,, are not (lie same.

Rel'.ardlng endangerment. the record is sunilarlv lucking in proof: According it) the transcript. (lie Carrier official closest it) claimant ova, approximately live IM avva%. Crum him. Moretwer. %%lien claimant arose font his chair. lie arose from it in a direction away from tile officials. A Ilotir plan diq

zranl ofthe office sftovvs that clatnlanl'S chair 11:L1 between him and the officials alter lie stool up. None of the official, tc,tified that claimant threw the phone in their direction. In.lecd. the record slltm.s that the phone ended tip near llatmarlfs fzet. r inally. evidence in the record suLLc,t, that the Carricr'-j poltev on viulcnce in the vvorkplacc vvas not applicable to the facts at hand. Accordingly. we are once again compefled to find that the Carrier tailed to

Given the I'ailurc of proof* regarding the two must %crious aspects of the charges against claimant. %%e conclude that the remaining charges that have been proven do not warrant termination of* cmplo%mcnt. I lowevrr. in light ol'his prior record ol'similar misconduct. the present incident calls fort significant disciplinary penalty albeit less than diachargc.

After clue consideration ol'the relevant circumstances. we find that claimant must he ollered prompt reinstatement to his lbnner employ meat status with seniority and the other attributes of that status unimpaired but veithout hack pas or other economic benefits for the time he has been out of service. C'laimant's reinstatement shall he subject to the Carrier's usual requirements liar returning to service after extended absence.

!'1)c Carric r i, directed to implcmc nt thcsc F indings and A«ard w ithin thirty dad s ofthe date Sho%11l helOV1.

The Claim is sustained in accordance %ith the Findings.