Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9734
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9478
2-MP-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
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company arbitrarily instituted a
new rule on the property governing only employes of the Mechanical
Department, thereby, violating the Mechanical Department Employes'
rights granted under Rule 32 of the controlling Agreement and the
Railway Labor Act.
2. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to return the
signed letter that was placed in each Carman's personal record or
enforce the safety rule covering all employes on the Missouri Pacific
property.
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 employes 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.
On or about March 31, 1980, the Carrier promulgated the following rule:
"MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT SAFETY RULE GOVERNING
HAIR LENGTH AND BEARDS
Hair, beards and mustaches must be clean, neat and trimmed. Hair may
not- extend below the shirt collar, nor cover the ears or obstruct
vision by falling below the eyebrows. Hair must be cut and combed so
that it stays close to the sides and back of the head. Beards,
mustaches and sideburns shall be kept neatly trimmed and close to the
face and may not exceed one (1) inch in length. Ponytails or pigtails
are not permitted. Restraints, such as hair nets, are not permitted
as a means of meeting or in lieu of meeting this rule."
Form 1 Award No. 9734
Page 2 Docket No. 9478
2-MP-CM-'83
After attempting to have shop craft employes voluntarily sign a receipt
acknowledging that they had received a copy of the rule, the Carrier directed
all shop workers at its Settegast facility to sign the receipt (or to sign it
under protest). If any employe refused to sign the rule receipt, a disciplinary
investigation would be convened. While the record is not entirely clear, it
appears that all carmen at Settegast complied with the Carrier's instruction.
The Organization charges the Carrier with violating Section Six of the
Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. §151, et seq., because it unilaterally instituted
a rule which constituted a ^... change in agreements, affecting rates of pay,
rules, or working conditions ...^ Alternatively, the organization argues that
the rule, if valid, cannot be enforced since it arbitrarily discriminates against
mechanical department employes. The Carrier urges this Board to characterize
the March 31, 1980 grooming standards as a safety rule. Also, the Carrier
contends that it has been a well established past practice on this property to
compel workers to sign acknowledgements demonstrating that they have received
keys, equipment and rule books.
The first issue presented to us is whether the Carrier's grooming regulations
could be implemented without notice and negotiations under Section Six of the
Railway Labor Act. The Carrier may establish dress, appearance and grooming
standards which are reasonably related to job safety and the overall health and
welfare of its workers. Second Division Award No. 8363 (Wildman). In this
case, the Organization has not challenged the substance of the March 31, 1980
rule. There is not any evidence demonstrating that the rule is overly broad or
unrelated to employe safety. Second Division Award No. 7034 (Norris). This
Board expects the Carrier to establish reasonable rules which provide employes
with a safe working environment and such safety rules may be implemented without
serving a Section Six notice.
The second contention raised by the organization is that the grooming
regulations were discriminatory since the rule was applied only to mechanical
department employes. We disagree. In shop areas, employes having unusually
long hair could pose a hazard to themselves and their fellow workers. Second
Division Award No. 7030 (Twomey). Thus, the Carrier had sufficient justification
to formulate a grooming safety standard specifically applicable to shop workers.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
ATTEST:
'0 -"
/ Z
Nancy ver - Executive secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December, 1983