Form 1 hATIOIZU RAILROAD AT~U"T"~'1 BfAz',D"i-.,x°d 'To.
8117
SECOND DIVIS10~Do::"'o.
7994
,2 _ .-' 79
The Second Division consisted of the reormlar members a(..
addition Referee Herbert L. Mar-x, Jr. , z,rhen award was z.,
( System Federation
No.
106, Railway ;,=-r,_.,: -~:s'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. Z. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Washington Terminal Company
Dispute:_ Claim of Emnloyes
1. That the Washington Terminal Company violated the controlling
agreement when they removed from service and subsequently dismissed
Car Cleaner Linder Bush as a result of a hearing held on August
31, 1977.
2. That accordingly the s'ashin,ton Te=.inal Company be ordered to
return him to the sez,ra.ce
T-i~th
seniority and vacation r--ElIlts
unimpaired and be compensated for all time lost since Jul-T 23,
1977.
Findings:
The Second Divisl_orl of the Aaju.:'tnent Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carr iers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are resnectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Rail,.~ray Labor Act as approved June 21,
1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispate
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was the subject of an investigative hearing charged with the
following violations;
"l. Violation of General -?i1.le '0' No emplc-Yee will be absent
from duty vi shout permission, -,h~hen you were off your assign,n°nt
frcm appro:~inatelyu
9:30
a.rn. until 3:00 p.m. Saturday, July
23,
1977.
2. Violation of
General
Rulp '0' No employee wi_Ll be absent
frog: dut;· without pez^:Aission when on Sunday, July 24, 1977
after argui r_g i:itil your supervicor, you wall~cu. off the job
without permission.
Form 1 Award No. 8117
Page 2 Docket ido.
7994
2-WT-CM-' 79
"3.
Violation of General Rule 'K' Employees, while on
Company property, xrast be courteous and orderly when on
Sunday, July 2!+,
1977,
you were argumentative and
belligerent towards your supervisor.
4.
Violation of that Dart of General Rule 'N' Insubordination
when on Sunday, July
24, 1977
when at approximately 8:00 a.m
to 8:40
a.m., you argued and were belligerent with your
supervisor and refused to go to your position as instructed
by your supervisor.
5.
Violation of that part of General Rule 'N'Participating
in an unauthorized and unnecessary activity while on duty
or while on Company property is prohibited when at
approxir.F:tely 8:50 a.m. Sunday, July 211, 1977, ;.~ou
threatened ,our supervisor by star-n; you s,jould ta«.e care
of him after 4:CO p.m."
The hearing was conducted in a fair and proper Tanner, and as a result
of the hearing, the Clai<.cLnt was dismissed from service on Se ctenber 22,
1977.
Fie had been hired by the Carrier on ;~:a rch 2, 1976 and had a previously
clear disciolinar~,· record as a Car Cleaner.
l,he
Organizat4on argues that
the t ias treated in wn u:f'a4.r
n
..wnric_ ou~ . ustt manner bt
Cla.~z~.wn~
t , ~_oun
~ and unjust manner i
,
five surervi sor s durin-_ the course of events on JiL1y
24, 3_977,
and that the
disciplinary Lcti on is therefore improper.
A careful exar:ination of the record shows that this is not the case.
On July
24, 177,
C1- ai:nant was called to the office of his F ore: an to
account for his tir-e while he ~~.s surnosed to ire ;-;or'hi n- the previous day.
The ar;~u:~·_ent, t'zreats, and general cc:::I'!otion ,,Th-*--ch resulted with the Ycr e-:an
arid other sunervisor7T personnel vas properl~r judged by the Carrier to be
of the Claimant's r.:a_an-. He obvio-asl y lost control of h i::=self, leading to
a series of events recounted in the record of the investigative hearing
and which does not need repetition here.
As to July
23, 1977,
this appears secondary to the principal cause
for the Claimant's discipline. Having reasonably concluded that the
Claimant had absented himself from his first assi nnr.,ent and made hi:=sell'
unavailable for farther ~-~or?: ass .,~n??ents (even i f he had a-mnarently remained
on the property), the 013.4.=::ant's superv-i sor would not sign his tine card to
certify that he had perfor:^ed work teat day. It was this which led to the
confrontE~tions on the fo~o~:,nr~; day.
Although
being "absent from duty"
on July 23, v-ws one of the charges, it was not the subject of independent
disciplinary action outside the framework of what occurred the follo;ring
day.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
8117
Docket lTo
0
7994
2-WT-CM-'79
Claimant's arg.ur_entative and insubordinate conduct on July 24, 1977,
was clearly not accenrnble and properly ma',=es him subject to a substantial
disciplinary penalty. In revie;Ti ng the record, however, the Board finds
that the penalty of dismissal is overly severe. All of the events of
July 24 were of one piece and indicate an employee going from bad to
worse as he (quite improperly as to manner) sought redress for the failure
(probably justified) of the supervisor to si ;n his time card the previous
day. The Board will order the Clwima pt's reinstatement Z~,Tithout back pay.
What results is an extended disciplinary suspension, zr_iich becomes part of
the Claimant's record as the most severe caution against similar future
conduct.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent that the Claimant shall be promptly
restored to ser v:Lce ?--:_th seniority unir:pa i red, but without back pay or other
retroactive benefits.
NATI01TLru RAIIIRW0 ADJUSi2,7fiiT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
ITational Railroad Adjustrent Board
1'sose:~arie Branch - i a.ci~_!Inys trat've assistant
r
Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this G7'~h d<%·y of September,
197.