Carrier contends that the facts of this matter, as set forth above, establish that its actions -towards -Claimant were not arbitrary or capricious and that the penalty of termination was appropriate. The Organization maintains that carrier has not proven guilt of Claimant to the charges alleged and that in any event the penalty imposed is excessive.
The Board is persuaded by Carrier -that Claimant acted improperly. Claimant had no proper reason to confront Kwaitkowsky in the first place.- The entire confrontation arose because Claimant attempted to confront Kwaitkowsky, the supervisor of Claimant's wife, concerning Kwaitkowsky s supposed mistreatment of her. Carrier correctly notes, however, that Claimant's recourse for the perceived mistreat)nent_of_ his- wife is- through the organization or administrative policies, not challenging his wife's supervisor about- how he carries --out his supervisory responsibilities. Moreover, the evidence is clear that Claimant's actions towards Kwaitkowsky when confronting him were inappropriate.
The Board is persuaded by the Organization, however, that the penalty of termination was excessive in this particular case. Claimant's conduct, while improper, was not so egregious as alleged by carrier. For example, while Carrier originally charged Claimant with violation of a Rule prohibiting -employees from absenting themselves from duty or engaging a substitute to perform their duties without permission of a designated officer, there was insufficient evidence to support such a finding. Moreover, Claimant's personnel file does not reflect any history of similar improper conduct towards supervisors.
In these circumstances, the Board finds that the meritorious arguments of both sides are properly balanced by reinstating the Claimant on a "last chance" basis with full seniority but without