The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert L. Hicks when award was rendered.
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
On June 26, 1992, six Carmen were working the day shift at the Waterville Car Shop. Before the quitting hour the Carrier determined it had reed for the service of all six to continue past the quitting time. Three employees accepted the overtime, three did not. Claimant was one of the three who refused. Form 1 Award No. 12834
At the end of the shift each of the three, who had declined the overtime was again approached by the Supervisor and ordered to work. Again, all three refused. (What fate befell the other two is unknown as they were never again referenced in the on-property handling.)
Claimant was served a timely notice of charges which read, in part;
The hearing was held and claimant was found guilty of committing an insubordinate act. He was assessed 30 days actual suspension from service based upon the act itself and his past record. (See Awards 26 and 42 of PLB No. 4623.)
The old but still valid adage of "obey now, grieve later" is most fitting in this dispute.
The discipline must stand despite the valiant arguments of the Organization in an all out effort to nullify or at least mitigate the discipline. The Organization contended Carrier violated Public Law 102306, and vaNi.ous rules of the agreement. These arguments must be rejected. The hearing was to determine if Claimant refused an order from his Supervisor to work. Clearly, he did.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made. Form 1 Award No. 12834