Unless you or the press have the ACTUAL ruling, you won't know. However, if the PLB ruling indicates the punishment was too severe, that is a tell tale sign he was reinstated in all capacities.
Why should a ruling that a punishment is "too severe" preclude any re-assignment to duties where this man's history of "code of conduct violations" would be less of customer-relations and potential security problem?
When you're reinstated in all capacities, you are returned to your previous craft unless otherwise directed. If they go to that length of limiting your return, that typically means that termination was warranted and they wouldn't even bring you back.
Additionally, they may have looked at the man's history and decided none of his infractions involved actual infractions. Additionally, there may have even been mitigating circumstances regarding his comments that we are not privy to but the public law board was. An example of this is when a young conductor was holding onto the ledge of a mail car. Allow me to post a picture:
You're basically standing on a little ledge, with your arm wrapped a that hoop. Since radios weren't prevalent, you passed hand signals with a lantern. Long story short is why this conductor was being shoved, he passed a signal to slow down. the move didn't slow down. he passed a signal to stop. The move didn't stop or slow down. Wrapped around the side of the equipment, this young conductor sees the engineer is looking at the opposite side of the engineer and quickly realized the engineer is running his mouth instead of paying attention. The lantern was thrown (which was the emergency stop signal at the time and the engineer dumped the move into emergency. However, the move was still doing about 13 mph less than a car length away. The young conductor had to think about how he could keep from being injured. the options were jump from that height or ride out the move and hope the drawbars absorbed most of the speed because a collision was imminent. The decision was made to ride out the movement. After the collision, the now ANGRY young conductor , who had swirling memories of asking "hey what happens if the engineer doesn't respond to hand signals and we don't have back up hoses and they said don't worry about it" picked up the lantern, approached the engineer and despite the fact this person was at least three times the conductor's size, threw the lantern at his head.
That seems like a code of conduct violation and violence in the work place.
However, when every looked at the case, they saw just how close to a disaster this was for the young conductor. There was serious damage to the equipment but the young conductor only had bruises and a few strains. So, they looked at the case and decided mitigating circumstances warranted less discipline. However, most people weren't aware of the details..only, young conductor attacks senior engineer.
That young conductor moved on to other things and never really had other (serious) issues. Would you have fired that conductor Tricia since an act of violence was committed? Would you have said they can't provide customer service because of an incident between two employees?
Maybe you would have.
Other wouldn't have.
That is why there is a neutral board to look at the totality of the incidents. You and I don't have the totality of any of this. We don't even have the ruling so there may be much more to this. Hell, it could be a lot worse.
We don't know.