AWARD ND. 21
 CASE MD. 23
 PARTIES i 0 TIE DISPUTE
Chicago and North Western Transportation OoapaV STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



(2) Claimant Wolfe's seniority as foreman be restored and that he be
 allowed the difference between the maintenance gang foreman rate
 and the trackman rate of pay for all time worked as a trackman sub
 sequent to his demotion."
 OPINI<1N OF BDARDt
 This case involves a 30-day suspension and the demotion from 'hack
 Pbromian to Trackman of Mr. W. L. Wolfe following an investigation into charter
 contained in a Notice of Investigation dated June 23, 1976, reading in pertinent
 part as followas

 "7oar responsibility for not directing your crew in an efficient wanner which, therefore, resulted in your crew's not performing their duties in a productive, alert and attentive manner, on June 3, 1976, while you were employed as Pbreaaa at Valaotine, Nebraska, Job No. 001.0 rridence adduced at the hearing, including a miaate-by-minute observation of Claimant's work crew on June 3, 1976, by Carrier police officers as wall as by frank admissions by Claimant demonstrate that he permitted his gang to take
 excessive breaks on that day. Specifically, the record indicates that Claimant and his crew performed lose than four hours of actual track work during the eighthour shift. Claimant occupied a position of responsibility and was himself largely unsupervised in the field. Pr his failure to himself perform and to make sure his men performed a full day's work for a full day's pp, he abused the trust and authority which Carrier placed in him. 7hare is no question that Claimant was liable for discipline bat the issue remains whether the penalty Imposed is Inappropriately severe in light of the oiraumataaces. use penalty imposed upon Claimant for his misconduct was a 30-day suspension without pea as well as a presumably permanent demotion from ?rack Foreman to Trackman. Is assessing the appropriateness of this penalty tae taro primary considerations are the nature of the offense and the past record of the employee. Clearly, Claimant did engage in anlpahle dereliction of duty which cannot and should not be condoned. Carrier is entitled both by eoonosbs and equity to receive a lull day's work for a full day's par. The responsibility to adhere to this basic maxis is particularly strong who" the employee involved is a supervisor who is expected both b set an example by his own behavior and to efficiently direct and control the man working under his. %lamed against one day's serious tsanagression, however, are 32 years of exemplary service, 16 of those years as a Foreman. (Dnriag initial handling Carrier asserld that Claimant had received two ·lettera of reprimands in February, 1974, relative to handling of his arms. !be Organisation objected that letters of reprimand are not edisciplinew for purposes of subsequent determination of the appropriate qmantm to be Dosed for later misconduct. At our Hoard hearing Carrier withdrew all arguments based upon the letters o! reprimand sad stipulated that the Imposition of discipline in this case was based solely upon the nature of Claimant's miscandnat on June 3, 1976. bt light of these
developments we have no need to reach, and express no opinion upon, the question of whether letters of reprimand may be appropriately considered a discipline when reviewing an employee 'e record.)
 tie do not downplay the seriousness of Claimant's dereliction of duty on June 3, 1976, but we must conclude that the penalty of 30 days' suspension plus demotion was excessive and unreasonable under tae circumstances. So far a the record shows, he was an employee with 32 years of unblemished service, deriaR 16 of which he served Carrier as Forman. There is no sngp scion in the record of incorrigibility or refusal to respond to progressive discipline since this is Claimant's first offense. Reason does not support a conclusion that a man who has given 16 years; of satisfactory service as a Forman is incapable of doing so in the future. We are not prepared to accept the Organization's analogy between demotion and dismissal but we are persuaded that the permanent stigma and loss of income associated with demotion was not warranted in this case. Thirty days' suspension was appropriate bat tae demotion in addition was excessive and accord. lngly we shall sustain the claim.

 Public Law Hoard lo. 18U,.npon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows
 1. That tae Carrier and Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Actj
 2. that the Hoard bas Jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein] and
        3. that the Agreement was violated.


                            -3-

                          AWARD


        Claim sustained. Carrier In directed to comply with this


        Award within 30 days of issuance.


                  Dana &. M echen,


_ _ SA'nn-c.:- .
 0. M. Bergen oy er . il. c age, Cater r memr

 Ddteds U.~1j ~~~ 7,