(Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.)
. orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6339
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6162
2-GM&O-CM-'72
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert G. Williams when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 29, Railway Employes'
( Department, AF. of L. - . C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company.
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current agreement Carrier improperly suspended Caiman
H. C. Poiroux for ten (10) working days in the period February 3 to
February 17, 1971.
2. That accordingly, Carrier be ordered to compensate Carman Poiroux for
. the ten (10) days loss of wages plus 6/ interest annually, compounded
annually.
'indings:
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 respective carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act as approved ?Une 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Claimant in this case had two on the job injuries in less than a year's
time. In May 1970
the Claimant filed an accident report for a foot injury which was
investigated by Mr. Carroll., the Carrier's Claim Agent. During this investigation
the Claimant made an additional statement-to the Claims Agent and was compensated for
the foot injury. In reference to this settlement and Mr. Carroll's attitude the Claimand testified at the hearing on the property:
".
. . About a week later he (Mr. Carroll.. Claim Agent) came
back and asked me for a refund on part of the settlement. I
refused and at which time he told me that if I did not make
a refund that the company vould have their day. (Carrier's
Exhibit No. 1 page 6.)"
f
Form 1 Award No. 6339
Page 2 .` _ Docket No. 6162
' 2-GM&O-CM-'72
-
01
Neither the
carrier
nor their claim agent controverted this testimony. Such a state
ment would certainly alert the Claimant to be cautious in any future dealings with
the Carrier's Claim Agent.
-. _ _
Later, on January
6.
1971.,-the Claimant sustained another injury when a
maul slipped out of his hand and, hit his mouth and teeth. Immediately thereafter the
Claimant went to a dentist~for treatment arid filed anaccident report. In reference
to filing the accident report the Claimant testified:
"When I got through with the statement (Accident Report),
I asked'them if
there
was any more information that they
needed; and they said., 'No.' I asked them if the statement needed to be signed by men and they said. 'No.' So
I felt like I had done
all
I could do. (Carrier's Exhibit
No. 1' page
6.)`
Clearly, when the Claimant was filing his accident report in the Master Mechanic's
Office he was willing to provide any requested, information. Later on two different
occasions the Carrier's
Claim
Agent.asked the Claimant to give him a statement about
how the accident occurred.
I
The Claimant refused to make any statement on the grounds
that he had nothing to add to the accident report. In the Master Mechanic's Office
the claimant by his own testimony was willing to provide additional information,
but by his own testimony was unwilling to provide additional information to the Car=
rier's Claim,Agent. ,D4e to his earlier accident experience the Claimant may have
been motivated
to
avoid the*Carrier's Claim Agent.- This conduct raises the question
of whether an employee is entitled to make
a
blanket refusal to provide accident
information after he has filed his initial accident report.,
Insubordination is
a
very serious charge in railroad labor relations. The
refusal of an employee to follow the instructions of a carrier official ordinarily
is not justified unless, the employee '.s health and.safety will be jeopardized. If
accident cases are to be settled on the property and the expenses of litigation to
employees and Carriers alike are to be avoided the cooperation of employees and carrier officials is necessary. If the Claimant in this case was apprehensive about
dealing with the Carrier's-Claim Ageat then his recourse was to seek the assistance .
of an Organization representative or legal counsel. He may not refuse to answer any
questions. Under the Federal Employers Liability Act and civil discovery procedures
the Carrier is entitled to evidence involved in the accident case.
In the- light of.these"findings.it appears to this Board that the 10-day
suspension was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
Form 1 Award No. 6339
Page 3 Docket No. 6162
2-GM&O-CM-'72
A W A~R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTUSTMMT HOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: `
Executive Secretary
-,ted at Chicago, Illinois this 7th day of July, 1972.