Form I NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8948
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9051+
2-C&NW-EW-'82
The Second Divisirm consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee (:larence 11. tferrington when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
_Parties to Dispute:
( Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company violated the
current agreement when Electrician T. J. Maddigan was improperly
removed from service on December
31, 1979.
L. That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company violated the
current agreement when they improperly suspended Electrician T. J.
Maddigan from service for a period of thirty (30) days beginning
December
31, 1979.
3.
That the Chicagp rind North Western Transportation Company violated the
current agreement when Electrician T. J. Maddigan was suspended from
service for an additional period of ,.«irty
(30)
days immediately
following the suspension that began on December
31, 1979.
4. That Electrician T. J. Maddigan be compensated for all wages and other
benefits lost account of being improperly suspended for sixty (60)
days by the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company.
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 Electrician on June 12,
1978.
On December 28,
1979,
Claimant, as well as other electrical employes, was observed by his
supervisor with the lights out in the work area, lunch pails in hand and ready to
go home some ten minutes before normal quitting time. The Foreman confronted
the employes and gave them three choices; turn the lights back on and go to
work for ten minutes;deduct ten minutes from their time card, or be written up
for investigation. Four of the employes turned the lights back on and worked
ten minutes. The remainder of the employes punched out and went home, with
exception of the Claimant, who replied "go ahead and write us up for investigation."
Words between the foreman and Claimant ensued and the Claimant was directed to
appear for formal investigation which was held on January
16, 1980.
Award No.
8948
Docket No.
9054
2-C&NW-EW-'82
Th s Board has carefully studied the entire transcript of the investigation
and briefs furnished by both parties and finds that the Claimant was, contrary
to the Organization's belief, given a fair and impartial hearing and that
none of the Claimant's substant-Cve procedural rights were violated.
It is the. position of the Organization that the Claimant was not insubordinate
inasmuch as he was given three choices by his foreman and by choosing one of the
three, an investigation, he was not insubordinate.
This Board cannot agree with the contention of the Organization. The
Claimant had two choices pertaining to his work assignment; either turn the lights
on and go back to work for ten minutes or deduct ten minutes from his time card.
If he refused to comply with one or other of the first two choices, then, by
means of elimination, an investigation would be held. The Claimant not only
refused to comply with the directive to return to work or deduct ten minutes
from his pay but continued to pursue the incident by telling his supervisor
that tie was "chicken shit" and asked him where he was going to be in twenty
minutes. By refusing to obey his supervisor, Claimant placed himself in an
untenable position. This Board has consistently held that insubordination in
whatever guise or form is just unacceptable in the railroad industry.
We have reviewed the transcript of the investigation and find that sufficient
evidence of probative value was presented at the hearing to support the charge.
In view of that evidence, the Board finds the Carrier's assessment of a 30 day
suspension well within the bounds of reason.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of March,
1982
NATIONAL RATIIt.OAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division