Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9233
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9225
2-NW-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Thomas A. Bender when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
( Norfolk and Western Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Norfolk and Western Railway Company violated the
controlling Agreement when it unjustly assessed Carman J. W. Hill
a five (5) day actual suspension on October 19, 1979, as a result
of investigation held September 4, 1979, at Cleveland, Ohio.
2. That the Norfolk and Western Railway Company be ordered to pay Carman
3. W. Hill in full for the period of his 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 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.
The grievant in this matter is a Carman at the Carrier's repair tracks in
Cleveland, Ohio. The Organization is grieving the fact that Mr. Hill received a five
(5) day suspension for insubordination. Specifically, Mr. Hill refused to do some
welding after being properly directed by the Car Foreman.
A review of the investigation transcript clearly supports the fact that
Mr. Hill did refuse to do the welding. Mr. Hill very candidly admitted that he
had refused. His explanation for the refusal focused on a dispute as to the rate of
pay for welding. Mr. Hill stated that on many occasions he had been paid the wrong
rate when he performed welding. Moreover, it was late in the shift and Mr. Hill
felt the job was too large to tackle at that point in the shift.
Mr. Hill has been employed in the Railroad Industry for over twenty-eight and
a half years (28~). Given that long tenure we are sure he understood the potential
consequences of his refusal. A long line of veteran arbitrators have written volumes
on the simple proposition that an employee's first duty is to perform when properly
instructed and then file a girevance if the situation so dictates; i.e. work now
grieve later. Had the grievant followed this simple tenet he would not have been
suspended. Five days is not an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable assessment of
discipline and will therefore not be modified.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9233
Docket No. 9225
2-NW-CM-'82
The Carrier argues that the contesting of discipline is not covered by any
rule in the labor contract. Fortunately, the Carrier did no.t spend a great deal of
time developing that position. See Rule 28 of the Agreement.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By .-
e~rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated ~at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July,. 1982.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division