The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Paul C. Dugan when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 99, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: That A. H. Gonzales, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, entered the service of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, in September, 1960, and at the time of the instant dispute was employed as an Electrician.
That on Friday night, June 6, 1969, Claimant started on the new job of truck repair at carrier's Memphis Diesel Shop, with hours of 11:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M.
Claimant at no time refused to carry out instructions given him by Roundhouse Foreman. Claimant did not use abusive language with the supervisor.
That at 6:40 A. M. on June 7, 1969, Roundhouse Foreman instructed claimant to put cab card on locomotive 421. At approximately 6:40 A. M., on
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.
Claimant, by letter dated June 9, 1969, from Carrier's Assistant Master Mechanic, was advised, in part, as follows:
Carrier found Claimant guilty of refusing to carry cut instructions given him by his supervisor and also of being disrespectful to his supervisor, and was suspended from Carrier's service for a period of thirty (30) days. Carrier, as a matter of leniency, reduced the temporary suspension to eleven (11) days.
The Organization contends that Claimant was disciplined by Carrier without a fair hearing; that the hearing officer had prejudged Claimant; that the Carrier failed to meet its burden of proving its charges against Claimant.
The Organization is relying on an alleged violation of Rule 39, the pertinent part thereof providing:
While it could be argued that the hearing officer, by virtue of the form of questions propounded by him to Claimant, was prejudging Claimant, nevertheless, Claimant as well as Local Chairman A. Manley and Committeemen J. E. Clark and E. V. Hulbert, all replied "Yes" to the question: "Has this investigation been held in a fair and impartial manner?" asked of them by C. T. Stringer, Assistant Master Mechanic. Thus, Claimant cannot now complain of the unfairness of the manner in which the hearing was conducted by Carrier.
It is undisputed that Claimant failed to follow the instructions of his supervisor by not putting the cab card in Locomotive 421. Claimant attempts to excuse said failure on the grounds that he forgot to comply with said
direction. However, we feel that this fact does not relieve Claimant of responsibility for failure to comply with said order of Carrier. Also, the fact that Claimant was informed by Machinist J. E. Brooks of alerter trouble on Engine No. 421 does not excuse the failure of Claimant to comply with a specific order given to him by an officer of Carrier.
Secondly, the record clearly shows that Claimant was disrespectful to his superior, H. W. Odom, Roundhouse Foreman, on the date in question.
Therefore, we find that Carrier did not abuse its discretion under all the circumstances when it caused Claimant to suffer an 11-day temporary suspension, and we must thus deny the claim.