The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dudley E. Whiting when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 41, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen )
THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(Southern Region)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carmen Welders John Witten and Glen Witten, hereinafter referred to as claimants, were regularly employed by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, in its Raceland Car Shops on the second shift, as carmen welders, with a work week of Monday through Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday.
The Raceland Car Shop is a car building shop and operates on a predetermined quota basis, i.e., a specified number of new cars and/or rebuilt cars are produced each day.
Under date of April 19, 1963, Carrier's Shop Superintendent, W. O. Bradley, addressed the following letter to the claimants:
open to the carrier except to discipline the claimants, which was done, procedurally and in substance, within the terms of reason as well as within the requirements of the agreement relating to such matters.
The board has held innumerable times that it will not substitute its judgment for the carrier's and reverse or modify the discipline administered to an employe unless there is a showing of arbitrariness, capriciousness, or bad faith. No such showing can be made here. All procedural and substantive requirements of the agreement were met. Carrier's representatives conducting the investigation were eminently fair, and the record reveals that. they sought only to determine the truth. They were able to note the demeanor of the witnesses and give appropriate consideration thereto in making a determination of guilt or innocence.
In view of the seriousness of the offense, claimants were not subjected to discipline more severe than warranted. The board has upheld dismissal in many similar cases, in view of which the penalty of a 20-day suspension should be considered extremely lenient.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The primary contention of the employes is that the claimants were not accorded a fair hearing, because the hearing officer excluded testimony offered in their behalf "relative to Carrier's instructions and the work practices in the Raceland Shop". It appears that the proffered testimony was not relevant to the charge being investigated and was properly excluded.
The claimants were charged with failure to obey a supervisor's directions to return to work after expiration of a coffee break on two nights. The only issues are what directions were given and were they disobeyed.
The proffered testimony might be relevant to a question as to whether the directions given were proper or reasonable, but such a question does riot excuse or justify disobedience to the directions. To hold otherwise would make each employe his own judge of what is reasonable and what work he will perform. No business could be conducted on the basis of such anarchy. The only way to raise an issue as to the reasonableness of a superviscr's directions is to obey and file a grievance. This is the procedure provided by the contract and must be followed. Disobedience consists of taking the law into one's own hands and is insubordination, which is a proper basis for discipline.