STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-4837) that:
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was employed by Carrier on October 23, 1952 and on April 24, 1959 was an active unassigned extra clerk.
On April 24th the Carrier bulletined several positions in accordance with the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In Bulletin No. 41 they posted Position 95 Relief Clerk for which the Claimant bid.
The Carrier also issued Bulletin No. 42 advertising for Seniority choice position 15 for which the Claimant also bid. Both of the bid acceptances were dated April 29th and were sent to the Carrier in the same envelope.
On May 5, 1959 the Claimant was notified of the acceptance of his bid on position 15 for which he had indicated first choice, the same as he had on position 95. Previously the Claimant had been notified on April 30th that his bid on Position 95 was being rejected because he was not qualified.
When Claimant was first notified concerning position 15 he accepted the assignment. About 25 minutes later he called the Chief Clerk and informed him he would not accept the assignment. As a result of his refusal to cover the assignment he was notified under date of May 13, 1959 of suspension from service. He was charged with refusal to take assignment bid and investigation of the charges was held May 26, 1959.
As a result of the evidence adduced at the investigation, it was determined that the charges had been sustained. The Carrier dismissed the Claimant from service as of June. 2, 1959. This decision was processed through the various appeal steps and finally referred to this Board for determination.
The Claimant's refusal to work position 15 was based on his alleged right to position 95. The Agreement provided a means of recourse to the Claimant if the Company was in error in not assigning him to said position and he should have followed that course. Instead the record amply demonstrates that the Claimant, without any legitimate reason, refused to cover position 15. This being so, the Carrier was justified in its position that the Claimant was insubordinate. Awards 7289, 8179, 8711 among others are controlling here.
While the organization contends that the Claimant was not accorded a fair and impartial hearing, the fact is that at the hearing the Claimant admitted that he had refused to cover assignment 15 and was thus guilty of insubordination by his own admission. There is thus no basis for the contention that the Claimant was denied a fair and impartial trial.
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