Form 1 NATIOT`TAL RAILROAD ADJtTSTNEt1T BOARD Award Pros 7971
SECOND DIVISION Docket TTo. 786+
2-NRFCwCM-`79

The Second Division consisted of the regular mer~bers and. in addition Referee George E. Larney when award was rendered,

( System Federation No. 99, Rail_z~t~y Employes'

. ( :Depar tr:zent, A. F, of Z. -- C. I. 0.

Parties to Dispute: ( (Cax:~raezr~

( National Railroad wsserager Corporation

Di srnzte: Claim of It,i)loyes:

1. That Cannian Robert T,~ TTorvath was :i.r~:proper~r d_is:nissed frorl the

service of the PTat:ion~l T;ailroa,d Passer~;or Corporation for a period

bcginni r,n; October 2, 1970, throy;h .~Tovenber 30., 197, a total o:_'

si:~~ty (60; days.

2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to afford. Cla:u:~ant,

effective Drcenber 1, 1976, all- his protect'~.on under Appendix C".-2_,

3. That aeeo;.~d.i.nc

~ly, the TTa,ti.orka.l ?;a:i.lroad. ~'asNenz;er Corporation

be ordex'c:d to ccz_en.s=!'c,e Ca,rrnan ~=~cL:ert ;,, :roxwath for a?]. tiri"e lost, pa.u_ six par~cerr'c (6;~) inter°est on vwges, reins tat ~^^. ent to service -critY? seniority rights, va.rution rwE,-!~i.s and all other beneT.,s under Ap:y°naix C-2, a.~"t:.Decer_bev° 1, 176, r'r-r~::'aursem;_nt for a:L.l losses sustained account loss of coverage -under health and welfare arid lire insurance agreeYaents during the time held out of sox°trice.

Findings:

The Second Division oz" the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record a:aa all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the eHlploye or employer involved in this dispute are respectively carrier. and empl oye -vri.thin 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 d:i spate waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

In a letter dated. September 14, 1076, Claimant z.ras notified by Carrier
to appear at an investigatory hearing to be held Sez~te::=aer 23, 176, Clair:a,nt
zuas charged vith a,'i.1e r,;odLy having violated several rules of -the A,-~trak Rules
of Conduct due to a f ail1-ara to comply nr:i.th both written and oral u.nstx~l.?ct~.ons
issued bar his supex visor. In a loner dated October 1, 1976, Clad-mant was
notified by Carrier he had been found g-tn_lt;;r as changed and a.ccordizl-lly had
been given a 1W1:%' (60) day Sllrjm?nSiGn fru..i service, effective October 2.,
1976 continuing thrtYt';'1 and 1nC.l.:Rdi.nt; i OVC'a_.~er 30, l97U,
Foam 1 Award No. 7971
page 2 Docket No. 786+
2-NRI=C-CM-' 79

The facts associated with the instant claim are as follo ws: On August 16, 2976, Claimant reported by telephone that he would be off' warh account of sickness. Clairnant; T;~ds also off work a,.ma,ln on August 17, 1976 and the faLot^rinF; two days., August 13, 1976 and Auswst 19, 1970 were Clal-nant-ts rest days. On AuLlat 20, 1970; Claimant; contacted 111 s foreman by telephone re~',a;c.'CI.:LrS 1215 rPark:Lr!,,,-'t:ip for '4';Crli. The '~O?.°C.".1an 7_I1'!-O_^_,`-:'ed ClaLnant he could not marl-up for work -until he lead a doctor's excuse. As Claimant did not return to vor:·: for several d:~,ys thereafter, the Carx'9 er in a letter to ..
Claimant dated uu7~z~t 24, 19'hs apprised C?_airlant tlia:t aceordinr to Ri-0 e I
of the Carr.en's ~?yre ~~-ticnt, he h lad urit:i.l Au~vsv 30, 19i'0 to either report to

r

work or to notify uhe Carrier prior to that; dace. On :au~,,u.st 30, 1976, CCarrier contacted tis~ C1a.`LY.^.arrt b;; telephone and s^r-as instm;c ted to bring ire a
doctor's release 11:1.:1E'd-lately.~ `" C1a71_'.ai1'i. _~^8:11ed to CO:::,Il,,T with this O_--LZ_

_ ha

da.reetive. Carrier :~n =w letter to Cl.a-i.~na,YYt dated SE.pt~:wber 3, 1976 instructed
him to retort to LI IF~ssauri T~.=),c1f:?C ro,r~_t^.l on e -L ~t~_^;;~er 9, 1.9 (E; at u:CiO i~lI
~~ ~.t '1 't ~.,,. ' _rat'iell.t C:.1-11_:I_'° CZa1T'1:F:,r!;G i c ,S i!'lfor:!llc,.d ±~%rti_E:r
for rC`E.'!?~.__:1.Y'0.. :LC~x c_ Wle O'L,~t ...
that failure t0 COi:_?2,:~y' 'S^:ith these 1nSt'--11C-'tiOnWrrO17_LCL 'I'esLdlt iYl U.'i_C'C:1;;11i.',a~'j''
procedures. As a xwesul.t of Claiwant's re:f.'uswl to co.rp`!:,~ i~i°ith the instx`L?^t~_ons
contained in the letter dated Sep'te~:uer 3, 1970, Cla.'_Y::ant was su::,r~oned to
a forYral investigation, sub J'eqI?-.Jntly adjudged. guilty and given a sixty (60)
day disciplinary suspension.

In a review of tlve record, -this roaxd finds the evidence a.~l.inst tile
Cla1maryt over'vTlleL?:1.rl-m Cla1::1°nt VT.'=S, 1n all respects i22SUbOLd1:'?atv wller', 112
failed to cc:amply on tl_ree occasions ~Tith F~nl.icit instructions issued by his
super°v !.Nor . 1^?e feel Cla:L:_ant needs to -be r aaainded that if he leas cause to
feel directives by his S'G.'pCx x'1::01:' are in any 't^lU.y d1SCr:i::.1natOry, he has the
,right of redress throa.,gh tile contractual guarantee of the grievance pt°ocedue::p
As the Claimant had e:hsolutea.,y no right to simply roil?se to cor:rnl.;; -with ti:a.e
instructians issued him nor to resort to self-help methods outsid.; the
collective bargaining a.greerrent, ?'re find the discipline imposed both appronv.ate
and justified.

A Za A. R D

Claim denied.

PTATTONU RAILROAD AD3JST7=T BO-,VD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
I lational Railroad Adjustment Board

r

c~'h6se:narie 3rasch - Adn-inistrative Assistant

Dated(at Chicago, Zl.1:LrD1.5, this 13't11 day of June, 1979.