Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADfTUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
894?
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9029
1'-MP-EW-' 82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Clarence H. Herrington when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rule 32 (a) of
the June 1,
1960
controlling agreement at DeSoto,.Missouri when they
removed Crane Operator Jane M. Daugherty from service Thursday, May 17,
1979
without the procedural provisions of said rule.
2. That, accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to
compensate Crane Operator Jane M. Daugherty eight hours
(8')
at the
straight time rate in effect for Thursday, May
17, 1979.
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 was employed as a Crane Operator on January
5, 1978.
At the time
of her employment Claimant was advised that it would be necessary that she keep
her hair groomed off the collar and above the ears to meet Carrier's standards.
Claimant advised Carrier, at the time of her employment, that she would have no
difficulty complying with the instructions.
On May
17, 1979,
Claimant's supervisor observed her wearing a wig while at
work. She was requested to remove her wig, which she dial. At that time
Claimant was advised that the length of her hair did not meet the carrier's
standards and that she would not be permitted to work until such time as she had
it cut to meet the required standards. Claimant reported to work on May 18,
1979
with her hair at an acceptable length and was permitted to resume work.
It is the position of the Claimant that holding her out of service was in
fact discipline without the procedural provisions of Rule
32
(a) reading:
"An employee covered by this agreement who has been in
service more than
30
days, or whose application has been
formally approved, shall not be disciplined or dismissed
Award No.
8947
Docket No.
9029
2-MP-EW-'82
without first being given a fair and impartial investigation
by an officer of the railroad. He may, however, in proper
cases, be held out of service pending such investigation
which shall be promptly held."
It is the Carrier's position that the refusal to permit Claimant to work
until she complied with the prescribed standards did not constitute discipline.
The validity of the Carrier's grooming standards is not an issue before
the Board.
The Organization cites Second Division Award No.
7030
as precedent for its
position in the instant case. The Board has carefully reviewed the facts as set
out in Award No. 7030 and finds considerable variance with the facts now before
us. Therefore, the Board holds that Second Division Award No.
7030
lends no
credence to the Organization's position.
The question before the Board is whether or not the Carrier's refusal to
permit employees to work because they do not meet standards established for
service is of itself discipline. There is a long line of precedent that it is
not. See Third Division Award No.
21647
and awards referred to therein.
The Claimant was well aware of the requirement to keep her hair groomed to
Carrier's standards; this she failed to do. The record does not reveal any
time limit to which she had to comply, nor was there any inference of any
discipline far her failure to comply. Claimant was not suspended from service
as contemplated by Rule
32(a),
but was held out of service for violation of a
regulation pertaining to her work requirement.
The Board, based on the entire record and the above Findings, holds that
Carrier did not violate Rule
32(a).
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUS7TIENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
R~semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of March, 1982.