PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 TO and
 DISPUTE St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
 STATEMENT "1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement when Laborer Larry
 OF CLAIM Crow was unjustly dismissed do February 28, 1979.

              2. Claimant Larry Crow shall be reinstated to his former position with pay for all time lost, vacation, seniority and all other rights unimpaired."


FINDINGS
Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 Claimant, a laborer, had been employed by Carrier for approximately nine months. He was dismissed by Carrier by letter dated February 28, 1979 for engaging in an altercation and fight with another employee on a Company bus. Claimant requested a hearing in accordance with the Agreement which was accorded him on March 19, 1979. Following the hearing, Carrier reaffirmed its earlier discipline.

 Petitioner's position in this dispute is essentially that Carrier failed to sustain its burden of proof. Petitioner argues that Claimant was not the aggressor in the fight but was merely trying to defend himself. Further, Petitioner argues that Carrier prejudged the matter and thus, flawed the proceeding.

 Carrier recognized at least the partial culpability of the other employee engaged in the altercation. That employee was disciplined although not as severely as Claimant. Carrier insists that the evidence indicates that Claimant herein was the aggressor
 'Award No. 149

 S !3 ft- 2 P U

 having engaged in verbal abuse and having indeed started the physical altercation which was involved in this matter. Carrier insists that the record indicates without question that Claimant violated the Company rules by engaging 'in the altercation and thu: he was guilty of the charge and properly dismissed.

 The record does not indicate in any fashion that this matter was prejudged by Carrier. The record further supports Carrier's position that Claimant was guilty of,the charges and thus, was subject to discipline. With respect to the measure of discipline, Carrier had the right to.imposelthe discipline of dismissal on a short term employee who-engaged in an 'altercation and physical fight while on Company property during working hours. Thus, there is no basis for disturbing Carrier's ultimate decision and penalty. The claim must be denied. AWARD
Claim denied.

 Carrier Member

 May 7.0, 1980 Houston, Texas

 I.M. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman

 Employee Member