BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE )
 OF WAY EMPLOYES )
 AWARD NO. 52
 and ) CASE NO. 52
 NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL ) Carrier File No. 8-7-542
 COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP., )
 (METRA) )
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

Special Board of Adjustment No. 1122, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein.

 Claimant is employed by the Carrier as a B & B Mechanic at the 19th Street facility in Chicago, Illinois. He began his employment with the Carrier on September 10, 1992.

 On March 20, 2007, Claimant and co-worker C. Streeter were removed from service after an incident occurred at the facility. By notice dated March 21, 2007, Carrier charged both employees with engaging in a verbal altercation in violation of Metra Employee Conduct Rule N. They were instructed to attend a formal investigation in connection with the charges on March 30, 2007.

 The investigation was held as scheduled, and Claimant subsequently was suspended from his job assignment for the period March 20, 2007 through April 18, 2007. In accordance with the Agreement, the discipline has been appealed to this Board for expedited handling.

 The transcript of the investigation has been carefully reviewed. The record shows that Carrier was in the process of addressing a previous incident that took place on March 15, 2007 between these same two employees. A meeting had been scheduled on the morning of March 20, 2007 to attempt to resolve the matter. As the employees were preparing to leave for the meeting, Mr. Streeter said to those present, "All this because of this punk." Claimant admittedly responded by saying, "You see a punk, slap a punk." Foreman R. Bowsky, who was present in the room,
 S.B.A. No. 1122 Award No. 52
 Page 2 Case No. 52

 testified that Claimant ==came up in [Lvir. Streeter'sj face" and said --we can do this right here." B c& B Foreman E. Sanders, who was also present, testified that Claimant and Mr. Streeter then began arguing, using loud angry voices. Foreman Sanders stopped the argument. Claimant summoned the police, and Mr. Streeter was arrested.

 Claimant and Mr. Streeter both blame each other for starting the incident. Each insists that he did not accelerate the verbal exchange into an altercation.

 rtu______er ..7__ 7·a.
 raeswevGr, sue credible evidence from the witnesses who were present suggests otherwise. Claimant was not an innocent bystander, but an active participant in what could have resulted in serious harm to either or both employees. Notwithstanding the Organization's contention to the contrary, his participation in
 aa_is _ _t __.__ _ . r_ _ a_ _ _ ~ ___a_ _
 this exchange went tar UGyo11U what ought be considered --soup tanc- or harmless banter.
nlau,...~_._.a_,_...a n__]_ per __.1___>_ _ __~__ __ r_____ ._.
 a.inaaaanaat Vd0lALGU A.®1dRG 11, WSl1GIA FrovaliGS 7W auttoWS:













Once the Board has determined that there has been a violation of Carrier rules, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set acialn Carr;nrdc ;rrcnneit;nn of rl;er;nlix.n . v.lnee x n fin.l ;+e nn+;r.n~ +r. l..,x... h...~.. arbitrary or capricious.

 No such finding is warranted in this instance. The discipline imposed was nrnnartinnn?P to +lto ill-auPn nffonsr C·sra-iar h.. hl;,igf.,~. fn i,~.A,]n .of. work place. It has the right to impose discipline when an employee engages in a serious verbal altercation, particularly one in which there are threats exchanged on
 S.13.A. No. 1122 Award No. 52
 Page 3 Case No. 52

 Carrier proper-- e v0_ _ .a
 l_CarrIVier t. Alto 111e Organization argues that Larder SUOUIU nave
 averted this incident by taking action through the EAP, it must be remembered that
 Carrier was in the process of trying to resolve the earlier problem between these two
 employees when this altercation broke out. Equally important, it is ultimately the
 employee's responsibility _ r 7
 to uiaiiitaiii control of his behavior on the job. "ere,
 Claimant showed a willingness to engage in a confrontation by getting in Mr.
 Streeter's face and hurling remarks that indicated he was itching for a fight. The
 Claimant's loss of control, particularly in the presence of supervisors and other
 _1oyCCs.Q ., ~-_-_i ...e.._-.1___a m7_____ _ _ t__·_ ~___ _I_·~__ .7·.~ employCC-es, -W -as a ~ciailUS UIGUC11 Ux l:Unlauct. rllere 13 no U's15I3 10r U1Sturvillg the Carrier's ultimate decision and penalty. Claim denied.




Dated this 30th day of May, 2007.