Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJ'JST24E"1rT BOARD Award iio. p
fSECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6702
2-RDG-EW-'75
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Harold M. Weston when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 109, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
(
(Reading Company
Dispute: Claim of Emmloyes:
1. That under the current agreement Electrician James Doyle was
unjustly treated when he was suspended from service on May 22,
1972 to July
3,
1972, for alleged disobedience.
2. That, accordingly, a) the Carrier be ordered to compensate
Electrician James Doyle for all time lost from May 22_, 1972
to July 4, 1972; b) Claimant be made mole for all fringe
benefit disparities resulting from this suspension; and,
3)
for removal of the disciplinary notation against the Claimant's
service record.
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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
This dispute centers on a thirty-day suspension administered to
Claimant, an electrician, for refusing to comply with his supervisor's
instructions.
The record establishes that Claimant was given unambiguous and direct
instructions by his imediate supervisor, Assistant Foreman Burne, to
take a Company pick-up truck and drive to Deepwater, New Jersey, about
a fifteen-mile distance, to inspect ground relays on a locomotive that
was shut dorm in the DuPont Plant. That Claimant refused to comply
with those instructions is equally clear.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
6869
Docket No. 6702
2-RDG-EW-'
75
There is no evidence that the assignment would nave exposed Claimant
to undue hazard or ridicule or trespassed on any rule of the applicable
Agreement.
It is entirely clear that Claimant's duty as an employe was to
comply promptly with Mr. Burne's instructions, their validity could have
been tested subsequently, if he so desired, under the grievance procedure_
We do not agree with Petitioner that Carrier committed reversible
procedural error. Claimant was accorded a hearing on due notice,
was well represented there by his General Chairman and was afforded a
fair opportunity to present his case and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
The failure to comply with unambiguous orders from supervisors
is a serious violation and we find no valid basis for setting aside the
discipline assessed in this case.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIOi~AL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMEE17
BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
o emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of May,
1975.