Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADM TMENT BOAS Award No. 7767
. SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7691
2-SLSF-CM-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 22, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company unjustly suspended
Cayman Harold F. Addison, Springfield, Missouri, from service
on January 14, 1977, and subsequently dismissed him following an
investigation conducted on January 18, 1977, in violation of the
controlling Agreement and in total disregard of, and derogation
of, the Rules, Regulations, Safety Rules and Instructions
Governing Mechanical Department Employes.
2. That the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company failed to provide
reasonable notice of the investigation and reasonable opportunity
to prepare and defend the charges, thereby depriving Cayman
Harold F. Addison of a fair hearing in violation of the controlling
Agreement.
3.
That Caiman Harold F. Addison be restored to service with all
seniority rights, vacation rights and benefits that are a condition
of employment; that he be compensated for all. lost time plus
annual interest; that, he be reimbursed for all. losses sustained
because of loss of coverage under health and welfare and life
insurance agreements during the time he has been held out of
service.
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, 193+.
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
Form l Award No.
7767
Page 2 Docket No.
7691
2-SLSF-CM-'78
Claimant was dismissed because he had allegedly refused to obey a
direct order of his supervisor. Claimant had been assigned the job of
building trucks. On the day in question, January 14, he was instructed
to obtain some truck parts outside the shop and carry them back into the
shop. Claimant refused, stating that he had a cold.
The day was marked by inclement weather--cold, snow, and slush.
The parts Claimant was directed to obtain were located about 10 feet from
the shop door. The employees' .parking lot, where Claimant parked his car,
is located some
150-200
yards from the shop.
It was not until the formal investigation on the charges levied
against Claimant that Petitioner alleged that Claimant's refusal was based
on considerations of personal safety.
Claimant refused the instructions of both his immediate supervisor
and the General Foreman to obtain the truck parts needed for the truck
assembly. It is well understood that employees axe to comply with reasonable
orders of their supervisors unless compliance with such orders ox directions
would expose them to clear and immediate danger. The "law of the shop"
is to obey first and then grieve if an employee believes that the order
is unjust ox not according to the terms of the collective bargaining
agreement. Claimant should have followed this procedure.
At the time of the incident, Claimant did not raise the hazard ox
danger factor as his reason fox refusing to obtain the parts stored outside
the shop building. His reasons fox failure to comply with his foreman's
request, according to the record, were that he tress coming down. with a cold
and the inclement weather. At the time of the occurrence, Claimant was
61
years of age with
26-1/2
years of service with the Carrier.
During the latex stages of the appeal process, Carrier offered to
return Claimant to service on a leniency basis without pay fox time lost
but with all seniority and vacation rights unimpaired. This offer was
rejected by the organization.
This Board is of the opinion that Claimant's action in refusing to
follow his foreman's instruction merited discipline, but not the sanction
of dismissal from Carrier's service. It may well be that Carrier, taping
all factors into account, recognized that Claimant's offense did not
warrant dismissal from service and offered to return him on a leniency
basis but without pay for time lost. We axe inclined to agree with
Carrier and, accordingly, rule that Claimant shall. be restored to service
without pay fox time lost.
I
Form 1 Award No. 7767
Page
3
Docket No.
7691
2-SLSF-CM-178
A W A R D
Claimant is to be restored to service without pay for time lost.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National railroad Adjustment Board
By ,..-t'~·v·...
r,r-~ ...~.--
o axle Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of December,
1978,