Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8878
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8739
2-SPT-MA-182
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Joseph A. Sickles when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispu:e: ( Aerospace Workers
Dispute: Claim of Employee:
Southern Pacific Transportation Company
1. That Machinist E. B. Lewis was unjustly dealt with by the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company (T&L) as follows:
(A)
"...
Suspended from service for violation of Rule 801 of the 'Rules
and Regulations of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company,.."
(letter dated October
4, 1978, 7:30
PM).
(B) Reinstated November
16, 1978,
following investigation held
November
2, 1978,
without reimbursement for lost time.
That, accordingly, Claimant be reimbursed at the pro rata rate of pay
from the time he was removed from the service of the Carrier by Letter
October
4, 1978,
at
7:30
PM for his regular assignment until November
16,
1978,
at which time he was restored to service, all overtime for which
lie would have been available at the punitive rate of pay had he not been
removed from service, plus six percent
(6%)
per annum interest.
2.
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 employee involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act
as approved June 21,
193+.
This Division o f the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction aver the dispute=
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
On October
4, 1978,
the Claimant was removed from service concerning am asserted
insubordination, in violation of a cited rule. An investigation was scheduled for
October
13, 1978,
but due to the hospitalization of the Employee it was rescheduled
for November 2 and subsequently, the Employe was found guilty. He was ordered
reinstated on November
16, 1978.
No monetary reimbursement was made for the period
of the suspension.
At the investigation, evidence was presented to show that the Claimant was
instructed to purge a "lube oil system and fill the unit with oil". However, it
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
8878
Docket No.
8739
2-SP'T-MA-'
82
is contended that the Claimant refused to cooperate with others in an effort to
accomplish the task.
The Employee questions that he was given an order concerning oil, oil containers
and another employee, or that he was insubordinate as charged. He has also raised a
question as to his responsibility.
A lengthy recitation of the various items of testimony is not deemed necessary.
Our function is not to substitute our judgment for that of Carrier, but rather to
assure that there is sufficient evidence of record upon which a finding of guilty
can be based. We feel that there is evidence to support the conclusion that this
Employee received and understood certain instructions and that he did not comply.
We do question however, the extent of the disciplinary action. Accordingly, we
will only sustain a suspension of 15 work days.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent stated in the Findings above.
NATIONAL RAI11t0AD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By.
o emarie Brasch
I
Administrative Assistant
Dated t
~7
Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of January,
1982_,
logo