Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
9411
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9350
2-BN-EW-183
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Burlington Northern Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employee:
1. That in violation of the current Agreement, Electrician R. E. Shaw of
West Burlington, Iowa was unjustly suspended from service of the
Burlington Northern Inc., following investigation held on date of
June 32,
1980.
2. That the notice of discipline dated July
8, 1980
was incorrect in its
stated assessment of discipline and therefore procedurally defective:.
3.
That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to make the aforementioned Mr.
R. E. Shaw whole by compensating him for all wages lost while unjustly
withheld from service, in addition to unimpaired restoration of all
rights and benefits due him under prevailing schedule rules. Claim to
begin at
3:31
P.m., on July
8, 1980
and to continue through
6:59
a.m.,
August 20,
1980,
and will include removal of all record of this
investigation from Mr. R. E. Shaw's personal record.
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,
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.
Claimant, Mr. R. E. Shaw, received notice on June
4, 1980
to attend an
investigative hearing on June 12,
1980
to ascertain the facts and his responsibility
in connection with his "alleged quarrelsome conversation with (his) immediate
supervisor and (his) vicious and unsafe removal of an object from (his) work
bench at approximately 7:I0 A.M. on June
4, 1980".
On July
8, 1980
Claimant was
advised by the Carrier that he had been found guilty as charged and was being
assessed a suspension of thirty (30) working days. After appeals for adjustment
of this discipline were made on property by the Organization in a timely and
orderly manner up to and including the highest designated officer of the Carrier,
this case is now before the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
Form 1 Award No. 9+11
Page 2 Docket No. 9350
2-BN-EW-183
An analysis of the record before this Board leads it to conclude that the
investigation was held in a fair and impartial manner and that there is no
procedural error in Carrier notice of discipline since the suspension, as
indicated in notice to Claimant, and as verified by appeal letter of Organization
Vice General Chairman on October 17, 1980, was clearly a suspension levied for
thirty (30) working days. Further analysis of the transcript of the hearing
shows that sufficient substantial evidence is present to warrant that Claimant
is guilty as charged. And substantial evidence is here defined as "such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion"
(Consul. Ed. Co. vs. Labor Board 305 U.S. 197,229). The hearing transcript
establishes that Claimant was quarrelsome, that he used profane language, and
that he threw a controller from his work bench in anger in a manner which can be
construed to have been unsafe. Further, Claimant himself freely admits in the hearing
that he violated Carrier Safety Rules 661, 664 and C. These Rules read, in
pertinent part:
Rule 661:
"Employees will not be retained in the service who are
careless of the safety of themselves or others, disloyal,
insubordinate, dishonest, immoral, quarrelsome, or otherwise vicious, or who do not conduct themselves in such a
manner that the railroad will not be subjected to criticism
and loss of good will, or who do not meet their personal
obligations."
Rule 664"Courteous, orderly conduct is required of all employees.
Boisterous, profane, or vulgar language is forbidden."
Rule C:
"Burlington Northern service demands the faithful
intelligent, courteous, and safe discharge of duty."
If, in fact, Claimant had a disagreement with his supervisor over procedures for
calling in to lay off, he should have obeyed his superior and filed a grievance
rather than create the sequence of events which led to this case being before
the National Railroad Adjustment Board. From the record before it, therefore,
the Board cannot conclude that Carrier's action was unreasonable, arbitrary, _
capricious nor discriminatory when it assessed the discipline against Claimant.
It will not, therefore, disturb Carrier determination in this matter.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1
Page
3
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No.
9-11
Docket No.
9350
2-BN-Ew-'83
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
BY
s marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of March,
1983.