PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

ATLANTA, BIRMINGHAM AND COAST RAILROAD

COMPANY


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood-


(a) That W. W. Lashley, Extra Gang Foreman, Bellwood, Georgia, was unjustly dismissed from the service; and


(b) That W. W. Lashley be reinstated with seniority unimpaired and paid for all time lost from the date of his dismissal, January 18, 1943, until he is returned to service.


OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was foreman in charge of an extra gang. Under date of January 16, 1943, the Roadmaster instructed him to load a carload of rail at Langdon Spur and haul it to Gay for loading. The Roadmaster's orders contained the following:



Monday (January 18th), whether or not the cars have been placed."

Claimant did not carry out the Roadxhaster's orders. It was raining on Monday the 18th and his gang did no work at all. He was dismissed from service after a hearing which he and his representatives attested "has been held in a fair manner."


In their original submission-indeed, throughout the record, the employes' contention is predicated on the assumption that the men in claimant's gang refused to work because it was raining. We can find nothing in his testimony at the hearing to support the assumption. On the contrary it appears from his testimony that be did not call upon his men to work on the 18th because he thought it was raining too hard.


In argument it is sought to justify his conduct because there did not appear to be an emergency in getting the rails moved from Langdon Spur and stacked for loading at Gay; and because the carrier was accustomed to lay gangs off when it is raining; and because the regular section gang did not work outside that day because of the rain; and because the orders were not specific. That the orders were not susceptible of misunderstanding is apparent from the sentence we have quoted. All the other reasons attempting to justify clairuazt's conduct are beside the issue.,,~ took upon hini-self-tbe respon5l--~, i v f I conduct are beside the -hi-s superior and thereby subjected himself

lity of 1,regrdi~,g,
 to disciplinary action by the carrier. _
2531-2 216
Dismissal is, of course, the extreme penalty. But it cannot be-said-te-be~
 'trary or ca ricious in_ this instance. ;It seems to us that the paramount
 essenta in tie operation of rairoa<s is that subordinates obey the orders of./
 their superiors i-at was saidmAward-XTo. 2'216 may well be repeated here:

 '-"We cannot reinstate the claimant without too far weakening the power to enforce its instructions, which properly reside in the carrier. Certainly we cannot do so, merely because we may believe that the action taken was, in the circumstances, too severe."

 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 employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes 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 no violation of the agreement has been established.

Claim denied.


ATTEST: H. A. Johnson
 Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of April, 1944.