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.
Following an investigative Hearing, the Claimant was assessed a 15-day disciplinary suspension under the following charge:
The Organization raised a number of procedural matters concerning the conduct of the Hearing. As in Second Division Award 13290 concerning another Hearing involving the Claimant on the same day, the Board finds these without substance.
On the date in question, the Claimant was late in reporting for duty. Before commencing work, the Claimant was subject to a discussion with the Assistant Plant Manager concerning his tardiness and absenteeism. The Claimant's attendance record Form I Award No. 13289
was not part of the charge here under review, but it clearly should have alerted him to the necessity of fully appropriate conduct while on duty.
With reference first to the charge of going off duty early without proper authority, the Claimant was scheduled to work from 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. The record shows that he left duty at 5:55 P.M. While contending that he was ill, the Claimant failed to request permission from or notify his Supervisor or any other supervisory employee. The Claimant stated he had advised a fellow worker. The record demonstrates. however, that the Claimant was fully aware, through previous reminders, of the requirement to seek proper authority to leave early.
As to the alleged failure to carry out instructions, the undisputed fact is that the Claimant together with other employees in the crew were instructed to take down a temporary housing facility. According to the Claimant' Supervisor, the Claimant said that "he would take it down when he saw the new building that was supposed to arrive, either that coming Friday or the following Monday." The Supervisor took this statement as an insubordinate refusal, while the Claimant contended he was speaking in a humorous fashion.
According to another employee. the crew other than the Claimant had taken the structure down "just before lunch." Whether this was before or after the Claimant's departure is not known. Thus, it is uncertain whether the Claimant would have participated in the assignment had he not left work.
The Board concludes, however, that the Claimant's early departure from duty, together with his apparent if not actual indication that he would not follow the Supervisor's direction, is sufficient to warrant the imposed discipline.
The degree of penalty (15-day suspension) was reasonable, when the Claimant's record of many instances of previous counseling and disciplinary measures as considered.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.