Form 1 ~ NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTP,ZNT BOARD Award No. 79+5
,~ ~19v 4 1979 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7876

2-CMstP&1"-i,!L- '79

J. 1r"V. CC)H':"AN oI

The Second Division consisted. of the regular members and in

addition Referee Herbert L o Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

( International Association of Machinists and

( Aerospace Yorkers

Parties to Dispute:

(

( Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Compr.yy

Dispute: Claim of Ernployes:

1. That Machinist Helper Roger Pryor, hereinafter referred to as

the Clair:_ant, under the current agreement was improperly removed

from service on December 28, 1976, and subsequently terminated from

service effective January 26, '! g77; furthermore that such discipline

assessed to Claimant z~ra.s un,~rarranted, unjust, capricious in manner

and extremely excessive and harsh.

2, That accordingly the Chicago, Mlihrrazz'f>ee, St. Paul and Pacific

Railroad Co?7:~ary, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, be

ordered to: (a) Restore the Claimant to service with all seniority

rights unimpaired. (b) Compensate Claimant for all titre lost

commencing December 28, 176. (c) Make Clai?r:ant whole for a11.

vacation rights. (d) guy the pramimns for hospital, surgical and

medical benefits for all time held out of service. (e) Pay the

. premiums for group life insurance for all time 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.

Carrier issued to the Claimant two sets of charges. One concerned Claimant's actions on Deoe:.a)er 16, 1976, as follows:

"l. Failure to protect your job assignment at the starting time of 7:00 a.m., on December 16, 176.

Foam 1 Award No. 79-5
Page 2 Docket No, 7876
2-CMStP&P-MA.- t 79
"2. For being insubordinate to your inmediate Foreman,
Tar. A. H. Tesch, on December 16th, 1976, during the
period of approximately 7:10 a.m. to 7:x-0 p.r·i,, you
did refuse verbal instructions resulting in delay to
Diesel 701., and in addition caused an overflow of
tube oil resulting in a direct loss of tube oil and
creating a messy problem within the locomotive and
in the pit, under the locomotive,"

The other concerned Claimant's actions on December 28, 1976, following which he eras removed from service pending an investigative hearing. These charged were as follows:

"1. Failure to properly carry out your job assignment in

that you were told to fill engine 12_5-C with ;-Ta.ter on

train 122 on track 7; j in the Iv:ilz~rauLee Diesel house

on December 28, 1976 at approximately 7:00 a.m.

2, Being insubordinate to your izrmediate supervisor, A, Tesch,

:in that you refused to bring in the water hose after filling

engine X25-C T~rith water when told to do so from outside

the Diesel hoase on ;;17 track on December 28, 1976 at

approximately g:45 a.m."'

An investigative hearing eras conducted, reviei,rinthe incidents involved in detail. The record shows that the Claimant received a full and fair hearing.

Review of the record indicates that the Claimant wa,s clearly guilty of

the acts of which he was charged. On December 16, 176, he reported to work
ten minutes late, tie was repeatedly and deliberately insubordinate to his
supervisor; failed to perform his work as assigned; and, as a result, z~ras
at least in part responsible for delay in the Carrier's operations and
wasteful. of a large quantity of lubricating oil.

If this were not sufficient, his actions on December 28, 1976, in

reference to a standard assignment of checking on water level and filling
an engine with water, he was not only insubordinate but totally lacking, in
the workmanlike conduct which can b e expected of a trained employee.

The Board finds no basis on which to fault the Carrier in terminating the Claimant's service. If further support is needed as to the justification of the severity of the disciplinary penalty, it is readily available in Claimant's past record, which included: a previous dismissal froze service for insubordination and rei nstate:.zent on a -! c:n:i_enc-,- b.^;, ~ s ; c?wFn,^red suspension for disrespect to a Carrier officer; and tyro ivTarnirrgs and a 30day suspension for absenteeism.
Form 1 Award No. 791+5
Page 3 Docket No. 7876
2-CMStP&P-MA-'79

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATICELAZ RAILRQU ADJUSTMIT BOARD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

BY ~.-- .. _
~Tfbs~rnarie Brasch - Ac3xninistra,tive Assistant

Dated at (J~ Chicago; Illinois, this 30th day of may, 1979.