Form -1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7643
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7340
2-C&EI-MA-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert G. Williams when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Ccanpany
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad unjustly withheld
Machinist Lloyd Jensen from service beginning September
4, 1975
and subsequently dismissed him from service on September
8, 1975
for allegedly failing to comply with instructions issued to him
by Foreman J. G. Hale and for making threats on Foreman Hale's
life while working as Machinist on the 11:00 p.m. to
7:00
a.m.
assignment, July 12,
1975.
2. That, accordingly, the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad be
ordered to compensate Machinist Lloyd Jensen at the pro rata
rate of pay for each work day beginning September
4, 1975
until
he is reinstated to service. In addition, he receive all benefits
accruing to any other employee in active service, including
vacation rights and seniority unimpaired.
Claim is also made for Machinist Lloyd Jensen's actual loss of
payment of insurance on his dependents and hospital benefits for
himself, and that he be made whole for pension benefits, including
Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Insurance.
in addition to the money claimed herein, the Carrier shall pay
Machinist Lloyd Jensen an additional sum of
6%
per annum,
compounded annually on the anniversary date of said claim, in
addition to arty other wages earned elsewhere in order that he be
made whole.
FindinEs:
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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
i
sForm
1 Award No.
7643
Page 2 Docket No.
7340
2-C&EI-MA-'78
Claimant was dismissed following a hearing held on September 4,
1975,
where he appeared under the following charge:
"to develop the facts and place your responsibility, if
any, in connection with the charge that you failed to
comply with instructions issued to you by Foreman J.
G. Hale and for making threats on Foreman Hale's life
while working as a Machinist on the 11:00 P. M. to
7:00 A.M. assigrrnnent, July 12,
1975.
Among other procedural objections, the Employes contend that Carrier's
Superintendent did not deny the claim as is required by the provisions of
the August 21,
1954
National Agreement. The Superintendent's letter of
November
12, 1975
stated:
"After careful review of the transcript of this investigation I am not agreeable to reinstating Mr. Jensen to
the service of the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad.
Your request for reinstating Mr. Jensen and claim for
time lost is respectfully declined."
We find that this letter, as well as a substantively similar letter
written by Carrier's General Manager when the claim was appealed to him,
met the requirements of Article V. (Third Division Award
21342,
BMWE vs.
C&EI).
After reviewing all of the other procedural issues raised by the
Employes, we have concluded that Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial
hearing and that in all respects, none of his procedural rights were
violated.
Turning to the merits, we find there to be substantial evidence that
Claimant failed to follow the instructions of his Foreman, J. G. Hale, and
' that he also voiced threatening and abusive language to Mr. Hale. This
Board has consistently recognized that employes must obey the orders of
their superiors and grieve later if they believe such orders are improper.
Further we have consistently recognized that the workplace is not a debating;
society and that employes must not be argumentative, abusive or threatening
to their superiors. Employes who commit such transgressions subject
themselves to serious discipline, and we have frequently held that permanent
discharge is not too severe a penalty in such cases.
In considering Claimant's case, we have noted that in his over four
years of employment with Carrier, there is no evidence in the record that
he had previously been disciplined for any misbehavior. We have also
considered that the primary purpose of discipline is to teach employes -
and not to over severely penalize them. Given all the foregoing, we
conclude that, in Claimant's case, the discipline has now served its
Form 1
Page 3
Award No .7643
Docket No. 7340
2-C&EI-MA-'78
purpose and he should now be reinstated to service but with no pay for time
lost. We must warn Claimant that should he ever, in the future, commit
an offense similar to the one here in dispute, we will not look so
favorably upon a request for reinstatement. We expect that if Claimant
elects to return to service, he has now learned his lesson and will behave
in a civil, gentlemanly and cooperative manner.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Odder of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
o~emarie Bxasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of August, 1978.