STATEMENT OF CLAIM: ' . . . for and in behalf of G. M. Ford, who is now and for a number of years past has been employed by The Pullman Company as a porter operating out of the District of Minneapolis, Minnesota, because The Pullman Company, did under date of March 20, 1940, take disciplinary action against Porter Ford by penalizing him with an actual suspension of four days from the service without compensation on the charge that '. . you exhibited an insubordinate attitude in refusing to sign an acknowledgment of oral instructions given you in the District Office on 11-15-1939 . . .' which charge was unproved; and because the disciplinary action taken as a result of said charge was unjust and unreasonable; and further, for the record of Porter Ford to be cleared of these unjust and unreasonable charges and of the disciplinary action taken as a result thereof; and for Porter Ford to be compensated for wages lost as a result of disciplinary action taken against him in this matter."
OPINION OF BOARD: On November 15, 1939, the District Superintendent of the Minneapolis District orally re-instructed Porter Ford on the correct method of awakening and greeting passengers without passing upon any failure on the latters part to comply with regulations in that respect and without administration of any discipline. After the porter was instructed on these features he was asked to sign an acknowledgment showing that he had thus been instructed. This Porter Ford declined to do as a result of which he was subsequently charged with insubordination for refusing to comply with the request to sign such acknowledgment and assessed the discipline from which relief is asked by this claim.
Whether a porter shall be instructed or reinstructed as to his duties or service requirements is a matter for the carrier's determination. The acknowledgment of such instructions is usual and necessary for record purposes and is not an acknowledgment of guilt.
The basic dispute presented is whether or not such instructions and reinstructions are considered as disciplinary action. On this question the parties are definitely in disagreement.
The Board holds that the conflict in evidence on the question as to whether or not instructions or reinstructions are considered as disciplinary action indicates that the issue is such as to make it impossible for the Division to render an award thereupon and the question should therefore be remanded to the parties for settlement through conference and agreement.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the carrier and the employe involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
That the question as to whether or not instructions or reinstructions are considered as disciplinary action shall be remanded to the parties in accordance with the Opinion.