Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13807
Docket No. 13694
04-2-03-3-38

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Carmelo R. Gianino when award was rendered.

(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM :




















Form 1 Award No. 13807
Page 2 Docket No. 13694
04-2-03-3-38
g. Any record of this arbitrary and unjust disciplinary
action be expunged from his personal record."

FINDINGS:

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.




By letter dated June 5, 2002, the Claimant was served notice to appear for a formal Investigation into allegations that, on June 2, 2002, he failed to report for work on his regularly scheduled midnight tour contrary to a directive given him by supervision; and that he failed to protect his assignment on that night. The parties mutually agreed to postpone the Investigation, which eventually was held on June 21, 2002. On July 12, 2002, the Claimant was advised that he had been found guilty of violating Rules 1.4, 1.6, and 1.13 of the KCS General Responsibilities, and Rule 1.15 of the KCS Mechanical Department General Responsibilities - both dated May 12, 2000. Appeals were properly filed and heard on the property. The case is now before the Board for adjudication.


The Claimant told supervision that he had a court appearance at 8:30 - 9:00 A.M. on June 3, 2002, shortly after his midnight tour of duty ended. Days before, he requested of supervision permission to leave work early. He was granted his request and was told he would be permitted to leave two hours early. At approximately 10:00 P.M., the Claimant began attempting to contact supervision to now approve a revised request that he be off the entire tour. He finally reached the Diesel Foreman who advised him to call the Superintendent (of Locomotives). He did call the

Form 1 Award No. 13807
Page 3 Docket No. 13694


Superintendent who denied his request and instructed him to report for work as assigned. The Claimant did not comply with this directive, advising the Superintendent that he would be taking off all night.













Form 1 Award No. 13807
Page 4 Docket No. 13694
04-2-03-3-38
spend their time on duty working only for the railroad. Employees
must not leave their assignment, exchange duties, or allow others to
fill their assignment without proper authority."

There is no dispute that the Claimant refused a direct order to report for work. In support of the Organization's arguments, it offers that the Claimant's overriding need to be alert for a very important court proceeding outweighed his responsibility to obey orders and protect his job. The Organization also contends that the Carrier violated Rule 29, and that, in compliance with Rule 15, the Claimant fulfilled any responsibility he had by compliance with Rule 15.








Regarding the Organization's assertion that the Claimant did not receive a fair and impartial Hearing because there were no specific Rule(s) cited, the Board is not persuaded. The language contained in the Charging Letter more than

Form 1 Award No. 13807
Page 5 Docket No. 13694
04-2-03-3-38

adequately describes the matters under investigation. There can be no confusion to the Claimant or his representative(s) about the alleged violation. Likewise, the Claimant was not disadvantaged in his ability to provide a defense.


Reliance on Rule 15 is also not persuasive. The Claimant cannot hide behind this Rule to circumvent the basic tenet of obeying orders. This Rule was formulated to allow management sufficient time to cover a vacancy caused by sickness or other good reason not to allow employees to absent themselves simply because they provided notification.


The Organization also claims that there was no mention of the Claimant's prior record until the final denial on the property and is not appropriate for the Board to consider. Prior record is an assessment of worth and level of discipline to be applied, especially where progressive discipline is involved. As such, the Board does not view this introduction of the Claimant's prior record as problematic.




      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Second Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of September 2004.