Form l NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSMPNT BOARD Award No.
80T+9
SECOND DIVISION Docket No,
788
2-C&NW-CTS-'
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
76,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A, F. of Z. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. Coach Cleaner Ronald Peoples was unjustly assessed thirty (30)
days suspension on July 111,
1977.
2, Coach Cleaner Ronald Peoples was erroneously charged with failure
to follow specific i nstruc dons from foreman George Taylor at
4:15
P. M. on June
g, 1977.
3.
That the Chicago and I:orth Western Transportation Company he ordered
to compensate Coach Cleaner Ronald Peoples for all time lost; to
make him whole for vacation rights and any other benefits he would
have earned had he not been unjustly suspended; and to remove
such discipline from his file, as per Rule
35.
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.
This is a discipline dispute in which Claimant was charged as follows:
"Your responsibility for your failure to follow specific
instructions from Foreman George Taylor in that you
proceeded to throw newspaper and trash into a barrel on
the east end of track
17,
old yard at x:15 P.M., June
1977,
after being told not to do so,"
Foam 1 Award No. 80I+g
Page 2 Docket No. 788I+
2-C&NW-CM-`79
Following an investigatory hearing., Claimant was found guilty of the
charge and was assessed a thirty day actual suspension. In its submission
Petitioner raises a number oz" objections with respect to the conduct of
the hearing. In view of our findings hereinafter on the merits, no useful
purpose could be served by discussing the alleged. procedural problems,
The transcript of the hearing in this dispute is replete with evidence
concerning the proper container for the trash in question. It must be
noted that a7.1 of such evidence is only peripherally related to the
central question: was C:La,imant guilty of the insubordinate act of disobeying
direct instructions?
Carrier argues that Claimant was aware of the instructions of a foreman
(not his direct supervisor) not to put the trash in a particular barrel,
but failed. to comply with that instruction. Petitioner denies that
Claimant even heard the allege:. instxnzction and hence was not guilty.
A study of the transcript fails to convince us that there was sufficient
evidence to support Carrier's conclusion. There is no doubt that Carrier's
supervisors hive the right to issue instructions with the expectation that
such instructions will be complied with. In this dispute the crux of the
matter is whether there ~~n~,,s indeed a valid instruction. An evaluation of
the testimony makes it evident that Claimant was standing at least 20 feet
from the foreman, with his bach to him, at the tune the foreman gave
Claimant his order. Further the eve-dente, without rebut';al, specifies
that Claimant was engaged in a conversation with three other employes at
the time of the order and fiLrther there was considerable noise at that
location at the time. Thus, the evidence is far from convincing that
Claimant ever heard arty instruction. Furthermore, if the order was of
sufficient importance to warrant the severe disciplinary action of
Carrier, it is totally impossible to understand the lack of any follow-up
by the two supervisors most concerned.. it is obvious that the entire
matter could, in all probability, have been resolved had there been any
effort to persexwere, vsfaa11y;, with Claimant.
Based on the entire record, we must conclude that the evidence does
not support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant was guilty of failing to
follow a valid order: he simply eras not aware of arty order. For this
reason, the Claim must be sustained,
p. W A R D
Claim sustained.
Foam l
Page
3
Award No.
80+9
Docket No.
788+
2-c&Nw-CM-
t
79
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By order of-Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
B l ~~z
.-c 1.~,J ?_
~c-.~?...f.~= ~"·-----.
.--~ Rosemaxie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago., Illinois., this 15th day of August,
1979.