l orm 1 LIATIONAL RAILROAD ADJTJSn= BOARD Award No.
8049
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7884
2-C,32VTT-CM-'
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin 14. Lieberman when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
76,
Railway Employes·
( Department, A. F. of Z. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: { (Ca=en)
( Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. Coach Cleaner Ronald Peoples ~,as unjustly assessed thirty (30)
days suspension. on July 14, 1977.
2. Coach Cleaner Ronald Peoples was erroneously charged with failure
to follow specific instructions from Foreman C;-eorgv Taylor at
4:15 P.M. on jvne 9, 1977.
3.
That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Compares be ordered
to compensate Coach Cleaner Ronald Peoples for alt time lost; to
make him whole for vacation rights and any other benefits he would
have earned had he not been unjustly suspended; and to remove
such discipline from his file, as per Rule
35.
F4
ind-ngs:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the ;-hole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
disxnzte are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as arnproved 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.
This ?s a discipline dispute in which Claimant was charged as follows:
"your respon: ibi1i ty for your failure to follow specific
instx=ticns from, L',Ibreman (7-eorge Taylor ; n what you
proceeded -f-.o.trw-Newspaper and trash into a barrel on
the east end of track 17, o? d yard at 4:15 ?.'., June 9,
1977,
after being told not to do so."
Form l Award ~?o.
8049
Page 2 Docket Nlo.
78
2-C&NW-CM-'
79
Following an investigatory hearing, Claimant was found guilty of the
charge and was assessed a thirty day actual suspension. In its submission,
Petitioner raises a number of objections with respect to the conduct of
the hearing. In view of our findings hereinafter on the merits, no useful
purpose could be served by discussing the alleged procedural problems.
The transcript of the hearing in
tads
dispcte is replete with evidence
concerning the proper container for the trash in question. It must be
noted that all of such evidence is only peripherally related to the
central question: was Claimant guilty of the insubordinate act of disobeying
direct instructions?
Carrier argues that Claimant was aware of the instructions of a foreman
(not his direct supervisor) not to put the trash in a particular barrel,
but failed to comply with that instruction. Petitioner denies that
Claimant even heard the alleged instruction and hence was not guilty.
A study of the transcript fails to convince us that there was sufficient
evidence to support Carrier's conclusion. There is no doubt that Carrier's
supervisors have the right to issue
instructions with
the expectation that
such instructions will. b e complied with. In this dispute the crux of the
matter is whether there was indeed a valid instruction. An evaluation of
the testimony makes it evident that Claimant was standing at least 20 feet
from the foreman, with his back to him, at the time the foreman gave
Claimant his order. Further the evidence, without rebuttal, specifies
that Claimant was engaged in a conversation with three other employes at
the time of the order and her there was considerable noise at that
location at the time. Thus, the evidence is far from convincing that
Claimant ever heard ar_y instruction. Furthermore, if the order was of
sufficient importance to warrant the severe disciplinary action of
Carrier, it is totally impossible to understand the lack of any follow-up
by the two supervisors most concerned. It is obvious that the entire
matter could, in all probability, have been resolved had there been any
effort to perservere,
verb,
with Claimant.
Based on the entire record, we must conclude that the evidence does
not support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant was guilty of failing to
follow a valid order: he simply was not aware of any order. For this
reason, the Claim must be sustained.
A.
Tit
A B D
Cla.1m sustained.
Form l
e3
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adiustment Board
---Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of August,
1979.
Award No. 8o49
Docket No.
7884
2-C&:NW-CM-
`79
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJZJSTIMT BOARD
By Order of Second Division