Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9203
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8879
2-EJ&E-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Steven Briggs when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to--Dispute-:, ( and Canada
(
( Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company unjustly suspended
Cayman Charles D. Britt from service for a fifteen (15) day period
commencing Monday, October 1,
1979
through and including Monday,
October
15, 1979
as a result of an investigation held on September 20,
1979·
Said suspension is in violation of Rule 100 of the current
Agreement as well as being arbitrary, capricious, unfair, unreasonable
and unjust.
2. That the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company be ordered to remove
the discipline letter, dated September 28,
1979,
from Carman Britt's
personal file and his record be cleared of the fifteen
(15)
day
suspension. _
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 of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Carrier maintains that on September
6, 1979,
the Claimant exhibited
insubordinate and ungentlemanly conduct toward General Car Foreman U. 0. Reed.
Basically, the Claimant was representing an employe with a potential grievance when
the employe apparently became loud and uncontrollable in Reed's office. Foreman.
Reed ordered the employe out of his office and the Claimant advised him not to
comply with Reed's directive. Reed advised them that such conduct constituted
insubordination, yet they remained in his office. The Board understands that the
Claimant was functioning as a Local Committeeman at the time, but agrees with the
Carrier that such role does not give him general authority to countermand the
work-related orders of a supervisor.
On balance, the Carrier's investigation of the matter was conducted fairly
end not in violation of Rule 100. Furthermore, the Organization did not provide
sufficient evidence to support its claim that the 15-day suspension given the
Claimant was arbitrary, capricious, unfair, unreasonable, or unjust.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9203
Docket No.
8879
2-EJ&E-Chi-' 82
If the Claimant indeed felt that Foreman Reed was not dealing with him and
the involved employe in a proper manner on September
6, 1979,
the appropriate action
would have been to advise said employe to follow Reed's directive to leave the
office, leave it himself, and then decide whether to file a grievance over the
matter. Under these circumstances the Board has concluded that a 15-day
suspension
is not an unreasonable penalty.
AW AR D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEI9T BOARD
By Order of Second Division
omarie Branch - Administrative Assistant
Dated ~at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of
July,
1982,