STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute concerns the dismissal of Claimant, a laborer at Carrier's New Orleans Freight House, for allegedly acting in an insubordinate manner on February 19, 1958. On that date, Claimant was on a 10:00 A. M. to 7:00 P. M. assignment and at 2:00 P. M., after he had been working four hours, asked his Foremen if "it was all right to go to dinner". When the latter replied that he would have to wait until 4:00 P. M. for his meal period, Claimant asked why and was told by his Foreman that he had no explanation to offer and he should return to work. Claimant instead stated "I don't have to go to dinner at 4:00 o'clock and I am not going to do it." He thereupon was told by the Foreman to see the Agent in charge of the operation but instead first discussed the matter with the Acting General Foreman and again with his own Foreman. He then reported to the Agent who suspended him; thereafter, following an investigation, Claimant was dismissed.
There is no doubt but that 'Claimant refused to follow his Foreman's orders. It is equally clear, as this Referee has had prior occasion to point out, that insubordination is a serious offense and employes must obey the
reasonable instructions of their supervisors and resort to the applicable grievance machinery if they feel aggrieved. See, e.g., Awards 8711 and 8712.
On the other hand, it is incumbent upon supervisors to act in a prudent manner and not to issue to their subordinates arbitrary instructions that may unduly tend to provoke them. When, as in this case, the meal period of a laborer engaged in physical work for four hours is delayed an additional two hours it is only reasonable supervisory practice to furnish some sort of explanation to the employe for that unusual action. The Foreman's failure to do so constitutes an abuse of sound discretion and considering his occupation and the setting, subjected Claimant to undue provocation. All factors considered, we cannot regard as unreasonable Claimant's refusal to wait for his meal period until the seventh hour after he started work, particularly when no reasons for that delay were brought to his attention. The mere fact that another laborer under like conditions elected to comply with the instructions does not alter or detract from our conclusion.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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