Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9531
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9625
2-CR-MA-183
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Barbara W. Doering when award was rendered.
( Internaticnal Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute:
( Aerospace Workers
(
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation be ordered to restore Machinist
G. R. Heckman to service and compensate him for all pay lost up to time
of restoration to service at the prevailing machinist rate of pay.
2. That Machinist G. R.Heckman be compensated for all insurance benefits,
vacation benefits, Holiday benefits and any other benefits that may
have accrued and were lost during this period in accordance with
Rule 7-A-1 (e) of the prevailing agreement effective May 1, 1979.
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.
This case involves the dismissal of a
3
year machinist, G. R. Heckman, on a
charge o£ insubordination, being out of his assigned work area, and using abusive
and threatening language to a supervisor. We find, despite the refusal to grant
a second postponement, that the investigatory hearing was fair and that claimant
had full opportunity to defend his case.
The record shows that the incident occurred between 2:30 and 3 p.m. quitting
time on September 9, 1980. When initially instructed to pick up some brake shoes
claimant refused telling his supervisor to tell the General Foreman to go f--hi.mself. Claimant does not specifically deny having said this, but alleges it
was said in a joking manner and further claims that others were standing around
when the order was given and he didn't know that the supervisor meant for him
to do the job. The supervisor walked back to where the General Foreman was standing
and reported claimant's comment. The two of them then approached claimant, but
claimant saw them coming and ran off and continued running around the shop avoiding
them until a few minutes before quitting time when they met near the clock. A
heated discussion ensued. The supervisor repeated claimant's earlier refusal and
comment and the General Foreman told him he would be written up for insubordination
and using abusive language. Claimant clocked out and left. The following morning
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9531
Docket No.
9625
2-CR-MA-'
83
he was Ziven notice that he was being held out of service and notice of an
investigatory hearing. His supervisor testified that he had already left the
premises before he could be served with notice on the afternoon of the incident
and that he could not be reached at his address on file.
Petitioner alleges that claimant's conduct in the confrontation by the clock
was provoked by the General Foreman's angry manner. Even if this were so it does
not go to the central issue which is the earlier refusal and comment and his
avoidance of supervision immediately thereafter. There is no corroboration in
the record for claimant's assertion that he did not know the order was meant for
him or that it was a joking matter. Nor does the fact that his work area covers
the whole shop provide an excuse for running around when he had been given an
assignment.
Petitioner alleges that Carrier acted arbitrarily and capriciously in not
removing claimant from service until the day after the incident. We disagree
with Petitioner's claim that there was ample time to do so and find that in view
of the inability to reach claimant at his address on file, it was reasonable to
notify him at the next earliest opportunity -- the next morning.
After a careful study of the record we are of the opinion that the evidence
supports the finding made by the Carrier. In view of the seriousness of the
offense we do not find that the penalty of dismissal was excessive or arbitrary.
A
W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By - t~1 ./
4 >
]Osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June, 1983.