Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSM9ENT BOARD Award No. 9441
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8081
2-B&o-CM-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute:.
( and Canada
(
( Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the controlling Agreement, the Carrier improperly dismissed
Cayman Emil R. Pulse, from the service of the Carrier, under letter
dated July
5, 1979,
after investigation, held on Friday, June 22,
1979.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to reinstate the Claimant,
with his seniority, vacation, hospital and insurance rights unimpaired;,
and also that he be additionally compensated at his applicable hourly
rate of pay, for all time lost.
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, a Cayman on the trailer-flat car ramp, reported to work at the
designated time on June
7, 1979-
When Claimant's shift started, the Assistant
Car Foreman instructed Claimant to lower the ramp and untie trailers on Track
Two. At about the same time, the General Car Forman directed Claimant to put
on his hard hat. As Claimant walked from the locker room toward the yard, the
General Car Foreman repeatedly told Claimant that he would have to put on his
hard hat before he went to work. Claimant did not put on the hard hat and he did
not verbally respond to the General Car Foreman's instructions. Claimant walked
past Track Two and eventually went into the Trailer Agency Office.
At an investigation convened on June 22,
1979
to determine if Claimant had
committed insubordination, Claimant testified that the General Car Foreman shouted
at him (and used profanity when the Foreman was telling him to wear the hard hat.
Claimant stated that he did not wear the hat because he noticed the hat was
defective. Also, Claimant testified that the Foreman did not give him an
opportunity to explain why he was not wearing the hard hat.
We have reviewed the notice of charges and the transcript and we conclude
Form 1 Award No. 9441
Page 2 DocB~t-CM-
1
8081
23
that Claimant was provided with a fair hearing. Though the Organization
claims the investigation was not held promptly after Claimant was withheld from
service, the record reveals that the investigation was postponed at Claimant's
express request. The Carrier cannot be penalized for hearing delays resulting
from its reasonable accommodation with Claimant's request.
Turning to the merits, there is substantial evidence in the record that
Claimant committed two distinct acts of insubordination on June
7, 1979·
Claimant
not only failed to wear the hard hat in accord with the General Car Foreman's
clear instructions, but he also disobeyed the Assistant Car Foreman's order to
report to Track Two. The Organization has argued that Claimant was not guilty
of insubordination because there is no evidence he orally refused to follow any
order. However, since Claimant completely ignored the General Car Foreman's
repeated orders to wear his hard hat and since he walked right past Track Two,
Claimant obviously defied and intentionally disregarded the directives issued by
his two supervisors. If Claimant's hat was defective, Claimant should have pointed
out the defect at the time of the incident instead of remaining completely silent.
Furthermore, aside from Claimant's unsupported assertions, the record does
not contain any probative evidence showing that the General Car Foreman was
harassing Claimant. The Foreman was legitimately trying to insure that Claimant
wear his protective headgear when he entered the work area. Since Claimant
ignored the Foreman's instruction, the Foreman could raise his voice to make
certain Claimant heard the order.
We note that the Carrier also found that Claimant had falsified his time card
on June
7, 1979·
However, this Board need not consider the alleged time card
infraction because Claimant's two insubordinate acts were serious offenses which
justify the Carrier's decision to dismiss him from service.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAIIdtQ%D ADJUSTrENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
r
rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April, 1983.