Form 1 Award No.
8084
Page 2 Docket No.
7915
2-Sue'-BT.7-'
79
Rule 80?_
"Boisterous, profane or vulgar language is forbidden."
The specific charge in the notice of investigation was that Claimant was
insubordinate, quarrelsome or othenri.se vicious, boisterous, and used profane
and vulgar language on April 28, 1977, under the following circumstances:
Claimant received a personal telephone call which he took in the relief
supervisor's office. The relief supervisor i-,.°a.x.ked by the office and noticed
Claimant "sitting in a reclining -t~;'p.,e Position leaning b«.c:k in the chair as
far as he could with his feet about eye level on the desk. And I went
around and I asked hi:n :if he vrould rc-:aovE his feet frc·_zl u,if.e desk and he told
me to get the -x-x-k out o.-" the office, that I had no business in there and
who the he:L'L dial I thirzi;_ I was and few ether vrords".
True relieV sup:~rv:;.sor thereupon called
trz--
General Foreman. Wizen. the
General Foreman entc.!red the office, Clai;nant juirped up, extended the
telephone tair3.rds the ;.eneral Foreman, and in latz~;v.age s:im:i.lar to that
addressed to the rel:i.ef supervisor, told the: General FarG:nn.n to get out of
the office. At that point, the General Foreman wont to 1.:i.s own office,
called cornra.ryr Special Agents and CLaL_.a,nt's -3::wueciiate ssz* neivisor. The
latter went to Claimant's work area., where he found Clai~v.nt working en the
deck of a locomotive and asked him to care do:rra® C1aiinant ,reoonded that
he did not have to tal'; to anyone and that "if you want tto all: to me come
on up here". After several requests, Claimant finally cor_,plied with his
supervisor's instruction to come off the locomotive. He was then escorted
off the property.
Claimant testified that the telephone call was an emergency call and
that he was distraught and upset. However, his
immediate
supervisor,
who informed him of the telephone call, testified that the caller did not
state that it was an emergency call.
Carrier asserts that Claimant's posture and relaxed bearing while he
was talking on the telephone belie his contention that the call was of an
emergency nature.
Claimant's supervisor testified that he was about
8
feet away from
Claimant and the General Foreman, that he heard the conversation, including
the vulgar language, and that Claimant's behavior to the supervisors was
"aggres sive".
Claimant acknowledged that he was familiar with the General Rules and
Regulations. His language went beyond the limits of shop talk. In essence,
he ordered the relief supervisor and the General Foreman out of an office
assigned to supervisory personnel. His manner was hostile and threatening.
Not until after he was requested at least three times by his immediate
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
808+
Docket No.
7915
2-sPr-BM-'
79
supervisor did he step down from the locomotive on which he was working
after the incident in the office, so that the General Foreman could talk
to him.
On the basis of the record and the transcript of the irarestigation, we
are of the opinion that the evidence supports a finding that Claimant's
behavior and language s~rere i n vi.olation of Rules 801 and 802 and that the
company's action in d:.s:r~issing him was
prUpc'rs Accordingly,
we irill deny
the claim.
A VJ A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive S~:cretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIOT~I^ L RAILROAD AT).7UuTTENT BQAPJ)
By Order of Second Division
BY
Wj'R
'semari_e Brasch - Admi.nistxw:tlive Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of September,
1979.
Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
808+
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7915
2-SIT-BM-'79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered,
( System Federation
No.
114, Railway Employer'
Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Boilex:r_akers)
.__. (
( Southern Pacific Trarzc;,~orts,tion Co?:lpany
Dispute: Claire of ErnpZ_oyes:
(1) Tha:.t the Southern Pacific Transportation Company dealt unjustly
and capricious with Boilermaker David Fann, Jr., when removing
him from service on April 28, 3.977, and disehs.rz;inJ harp fre-~:_
service on Tune 21, 1977. That aecorr.in7ly, the Southern
Pacific Transportation
Company
be ordered to make BozJ.ex~r?a:';er
David FGnn, Jr., 1-4hOle
'OVA;.
(2) Restoring h:i_m to service with all seniority rights, vacation rights,:
holidays, sick 1 cave benefits and all other rights that are a
condition
Oi
em,plo,rment, unimpaired
and
compensation for all lost
time,
plus
61,b'
annual interest on all such lost wages. Also
reimbursement for all losses sustained on account of loss
Of
coverage gander health and welfare a ad life insurance
agreements
during the interim he is 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 employer 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.
Claimant was dismissed, following formal investigation, on the grounds
that he had violated Rules 801 and 802 of the Carrier's General Rules and
Regulations, which read:
Rule 801;
"Employer will not be retained in service who are insubordinate,
quarrelsome or otherwise vicious. Any act of hostility is
sufficient cause for dismissal,"