Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9550
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9160
2-DM&nz-CM-'
83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Josef P. Sirefman when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Carman Paul S. Larson, Proctor, Minnesota, was unjustly treated
and the provisions of the current Agreement were violated when he was
suspended from service for a period of twenty (20) working days,
February
18, 1980
through and including March
16, 1980.
2. That accordingly, the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company
be ordered to compensate the above named carman eight
(8)
hours pay for
twenty (20) workdays, February
18
through and including March
16, 1980.
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.
Carman Paul S. Larson was charged with insubordination in refusing an
assignment on January 24,
1980
in violation of the Code of Conduct and Safety
Rules for the Mechanical Department effective December 1,
1972,
Part 2, General
Notice, Number
4.
An investigation was held on February
5, 1980
and on February
13, 1980
Claimant was suspended for twenty days.
A review of the record before this Board establishes that Claimant was twice:
given direction by his foreman to work on track 1 and 2 and twice informed the
foreman that he did not want to go to that assignment. Claimant's conclusion that
he was given the "option" of going to the directed assignment or going home,
and that he followed directions by choosing to go home strains credulity. From
the circumstances and the exchange between Claimant and the foreman it is clear
that Claimant was either to follow the foreman's instructions or be suspended.
Claimant chose not to follow the direction to go to tracks 1 and 2 and was
appropriately suspended. Whatever Claimant's reason for not following directions,
be it his interpretation of seniority practice or mere inconvenience, as an
employe with over thirteen years service he should have followed the direction
and then grieved. There was substantial evidence to sustain Carrier's decision
Ito
discipline Claimant. However, absent any prior record of insubordination during
Claimant's tenure with the Carrier, the penalty of a twenty day suspension is
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9550
Docket No.
9160
2-DM&IR-CM-'83
too severe and strikes as excessive and punitive rather than corrective.
Accordingly the twenty day suspension is reduced to a ten day suspension.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order
of
Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By a-e:~
s~marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July, 1983