Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10358
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10521
2-NIRCRC-CM-185
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James R. Cox when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
( The Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Coach Cleaner T. Z. Buckner was unjustly suspended from the service
of the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation for a
period of five (5) days, starting with August 8, 1983 through August 12,
1983.
2. That the Northeast Illinois Regional. Commuter Railroad Corporation violated
Rule 34(g) of the current Agreement dated September 1, 1949, as amended'.
3. That the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation be
ordered to compensate Coach Cleaner T. Z. Buckner in the amount of eight
(8) hours pay, at the applicable rate, for each and every day of this
unjust suspension.
4. That the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation be
ordered to pay Coach Cleaner T. Z. Buckner interest at the rate of 12%
per annum for any and all compensation that he may receive as result of
this claim.
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.
The sole charge directed against Coach Cleaner T. Z. Buckner involved his
alleged failure to perform duties assigned by his Supervisor at approximately 4:40
p.m., June 17, 1983. The alleged instruction was to clean suburban coach windows
on a train located at Chicago's Union Station on Track 13.
Assistant Electrical Foreman Weatherspoon stated that he saw Coach Cleaner
Buckner walk onto the concourse from Track 13 at approximately 4:40 p.m., and, that
when he reached Track 3, he spoke with him to tell him that his quitting time was
4:50 and to go back and clean windows until that time. He stated that Buckner
refused. The Foreman testified that he asked another employee what time it was and
_then returned to Buckner, who, at this time (according to Weatherspoon) was with
Peter Hawkin-. He asked Hawkins what time it was and, according to Weatherspoon,
Hawkins told him twelve minutes until five.
Form 1 Award No. 10358
Page 2 Locket No. 10521
2-NIRCRC-CM-185
Weatherspoon stated that he had directed Buckner to return to his work at
4:43. The evidence does not establish that an order was given seven minutes before
washup time.
Hawkins testified that Weatherspoon asked him the time at 4:50. He was then
talking to Buckner, who had "just walked up". Weatherspoon stated, according to
Hawkins, that he was going to write a violation slip on Buckner. Just prior to
Buckner approaching Hawkins, Hawkins stated that he saw weatherspoon talking
briefly with Buckner.
Buckner denies that Weatherspoon ever asked him at 4:40 or thereafter that
afternoon to clean windows. He claims that he first saw Weatherspoon during that
part of the afternoon at 4:48 p.m., just before cleanup time. He further explained
that he completed a car cleaning assignment about 4:46 and walked over to Track 5.
He stated as he approached Hawkins, the Foreman hollered at him to wash windows and
that shortly thereafter, when he reached the two men, asked Hawkins the time. While
Foreman Weatherspoon puts their conversation on Track 3, both Watkins and Buckner
state that he spoke to them at Track 5. Hawkins indicated that it would take an
individual at least six or seven minutes to walk through the crowds in the station
at that time, from Track 13 to Track 5. This time interval estimation was not
disputed and if an order were given, it would have been in very close proximity to
wash-up time.
Buckner was suspended for five days in August, 1983. While Claimant may have
been an "early quit", the charge specified insubordination. The Carrier has not
sustained its burden of proof in this case and the record does not contain evidence
sufficient to support the insubordination charge. Item 4 is denied.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of March 1985.