Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11291
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11299
2-DM&IR-EW-'87
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Paul C» Carter when award was adopted.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
(Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company (DM&IR)
unjustly suspended Electrician David Rockwell for a period of thirty (30)
working days as a result of an investigation held on October 1, 1985.
2. Accordingly, the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company
be ordered to pay Electrician David Rockwell for the time he was suspended and
restore all benefits due him.
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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The record shows that at the time of the occurrence giving rise to
the dispute herein, Claimant was employed by the Carrier as an Electrician and
held a regular assignment as a Crane Operator at Carrier's Proctor Car Shop.
There were two overhead electric cranes in the Shop and Claimant was required
to operate both of them.
Prior to September 9, 1985, Claimant had complained as to the manner
in which he was required to operate the cranes, the rate of pay for the Crane
Operator position, and showed frustration over the need to prioritize his
crane movements. The Carrier states that on September 9, 1985, three Car Shop
Foremen and a Car Department Clerk were discussing various matters in the Shop
office about 10:00 A.M., that Claimant walked into the office and began complaining about the crane assignment in a loud agitated voice, put his time
card on the Clerk's desk, threw his safety hat and glasses to the floor, used
vile and profane language to the Supervisors and then hurriedly left the
office; that two Supervisors instructed Claimant to return, that Claimant
ignored both, and left the premises in his automobile.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 11291
Docket No. 11299
2-DM&IR-EW-'87
On September 12, 1985, Claimant was advised that an Investigation was
scheduled for 1:00 P.M., September 24, 1985:
"...to develop the facts and circumstances
surrounding your violation of Rules of the Car
Department, Code of Conduct and Safety Rules,
General Rules 3, 12, 13 and 14; specifically
that on Monday, September 9, 1985, you left your
Car Shop crane operator's job without permission
of the supervisor, you were insubordinate with
Car Shop Supervisors;, you ignored instructions
from a supervisor, and you entered into an
altercation with Car Shop supervisors."
The Rules cited in the September 12, 1985, notice to the Claimant
read:
"Rule 3 Employees must report for duty at the
designated time and place. They must
be alert, attentive and devote themselves exclusively to the Company's
service while on duty. They must not
absent themselves from duty, exchange
duties with, or substitute others in
their place without clearance from
their supervisor."
"Rule 12 Employees must not be careless of the
safety of themselves or others. They
must not be disloyal, insubordinate, dishonest or conduct themselves in such a
manner that the Railway Company will be
subjected to criticism or the loss of
goodwill. Employees who persist in
unsafe practices to the jeopardy of themselves or others will be subject to discipline even though the actions do not
violate .a specific rule."
"Rule 13 Employees must comply with instructions
from their foreman, supervisor or an
identified official of the Company."
"Rule 14 Employees must not enter into altercations
or indulge in horseplay with any person,
regardless of provocation."
At the request of the Organization, the Investigation was postponed
and conducted on October 1, 1985. A transcript of the Investigation has been
made a part of the record. We have reviewed the transcript and find that the
Investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that none of
Claimant's substantive procedural rights was violated.
Form 1
Page 3
Award No. 11291
Docket No. 11299
2-DM&IR-EW-'87
There was substantial evidence presented in the Investigation in
support of the charges against Claimant. The "substantial evidence" Rule was
set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States as:
"Substantial evidence is more than a mere scin
tilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept to support a con
clusion." (Consol. Ed. Co. vs Labor Board 305
U.S., 197, 229).
(Second Division Awards Nos. 6419, 11179, 11180, 11184, 11239, 11240, 11269,
among others.)
Claimant's actions on September 9, 1985, constituted insubordination.
In Award No. 11120 we quoted the following from Third Division Award No. 24732:
"Insubordination may involve more than a direct
refusal to comply with instructions. It may
involve the use of foul and abusive language,
threats, altercations and similar offenses."
Although Claimant may have been frustrated over his working conditions as a Crane Operator, such frustrations certainly did not warrant the
action that he took. No employe may properly be permitted to take matters
into his own hands, so to speak, in a situation of the kind here involved.
Insubordination simply cannot be condoned.
The discipline imposed by the Carrier was not arbitrary, capricious
or in bad faith.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
fancy J. ~r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of July 1987.