Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTNENT BOARD Award No. 8768
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 86C6
2-CR-MA-181
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute: Aerospace Workers
Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation be ordered to restore Machinist: J. L.
Barnes to service and compensate him for all pay lost up to time of
restoration to service at the prevailing Machinist rate of pay.
2. That Machinist J. L. Barnes be compensated for all insurance benefits,
vacation benefits, holiday benefits, and any other benefits that may have
accrued and was lost during this period, in accordance with Rule J-1 (e)
of the prevailing Agreement which was effective April 1,
1976.
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,
1934.
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, machinist James L. Barnes, was assigned to the tool room at the
Collinswood, Ohio, Diesel Terminal. On October
16, 1978,
he was removed from service
for insubordination, use of abusive language, and conduct unbecoming an employee.
His dismissal followed a hearing into the matter on October
31, 1978.
Appeals to
carrier were exhausted and the matter now comes before this Board.
The stenographic notes of the hearing are part of the record of this case. A
review of those notes reveals that claimant was not denied any of his substantive
and procedural rights and that he was afforded a full and fair hearing.
Claimant was ordered to take a box of air compressor valves out of his
assigned work area, the tool room. He refused the orders of two superiors to do
so, using abusive language. While being escorted to the office of the supervisor_
he kicked a broom, which narrowly missed the general foreman. Claimant did not
dispute the fact that he disobeyed an order, but denied that he used abusive
language or that he meant to hit anyone with the broom. He claimed that his refusal
to obey the order was based on his fear of being disciplined for leaving his assigned
work area.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
8768
Docket No.
8606
2-CR-MA-'81
A careful reading of the record shows that carrier had sufficient basis to make
the determination it did. Claimant had been disciplined for being absent without
permission before. Had he left his assigned work area in the present case, however
he would have done so under a direct order. Therefore, his argument that he would
have been disciplined for leaving the area is strained and cannot prevail.
This Board has often stated that where an employee has a dispute with management
and health and safety are not at issue, the employee has the obligation to execute
the task as ordered and to file a grievance afterwards. Clearly, carrier has the
r1ght to expect obedience from its employees. This Board finds sufficient evidence
to support carrier's disciplinary action in this case. As stated in the past, the
Board will not substitute its judgment for that of carrier. The claim of the
organization is therefore denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
~semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Datedat Chicago, Illinois, this 30th daycf September,
1981.