STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Seaboard Air Line Railroad that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The agreements between the parties are available to your Board and by this reference are made a part hereof.
At the time cause for this claim arose, E. L. Holmes was the regularly assigned occupant of the third shift operator position at Baldwin, Florida; assigned hours 11:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M., a seven day position with assigned rest days of Wednesday and Thursday each week. Baldwin is located on the North Florida Division, of this Carrier, approximately eighteen miles south of Jacksonville, Florida where the Division Headquarters are located.
On December 24, 1956, Monday, Chief Dispatcher W. W. Walker sent the following telegram to Holmes:
Carrier affirmatively asserts that all data used herein has been discussed with or is well known by the General Chairman of the petitioning organization.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was disciplined for insubordination for failure to report to the Chief Dispatcher's and Trainmaster's offices.
The following exchange of communications formed the basis for the disciplinary action taken:
On December 20, 1956, Chief Dispatcher Walker, located in the Division headquarters at Jacksonville, instructed Claimant by telegram:
At 7:10 A. M., December 22, 1956, telegraphic reply was received from Claimant at the Jacksonville office, reading:
On December 24, 1956, the Chief Dispatcher again instructed Claimant by telegram:
At 12:50 A. M., December 25, 1956, the following telegraphic reply was received in the Jacksonville office from Claimant:
At 11:59 A.M., December 25, 1956, Chief Dispatcher Walker again instructed Claimant:
At 7:05 A. M., December 27, 1956, the following telegraphic reply was received from Claimant:
When the Claimant failed to report to the Trainmaster's office as instructed, the Chief Dispatcher notified him at 3:30 P. M., December 28, 1956, 11447-13 539
that he was out of service for failure to comply with instructions. After investigation (hearing), Claimant was suspended from service for fifteen days.
From the foregoing, it is clear that Claimant refused to comply with instructions issued by proper authority on three occasions. There can be no doubt that the undisputed facts establish insubordinate conduct on the part of this Claimant. It is true, as Petitioner emphasizes, that Claimant should not have been disciplined solely for asking to be advised of the reasons for his reporting to the Chief Dispatcher's office on his rest day and that in the interest of harmonious relations the Chief Dispatcher might well have seen fit to explain the situation. The fact that he did not do so, however, does not justify Claimant's failure to report as directed. If he believed the order was unreasonable or improper, Claimant was not left without a remedy. He should have complied and then taken remedial action under paragraph (f) of Rule 14 (Discipline):
What was said in Award 8711 (Referee Weston) is particularly applicable here:
The evidence of record fully supports the discipline imposed. Suspension from duty for fifteen days, in the circumstances, cannot be held to be excessive or unreasonable.
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
Granted that a Carrier has a right to require an employe to submit in person to a corrective or disciplinary inquiry, even on the employe's rest day when the circumstances plainly require it, I cannot agree that a Carrier has the right to command an employe to drive his automobile eighteen miles without rest after working a night shift or on his rest day, unless it clearly indicates the purpose of its directive to be in relation to the employe's work.
In this case the Carrier gave no reason for its ordering the claimant to appear in its offices at Jacksonville, even after an inquiry was made by the claimant. Furthermore, at the resulting disciplinary hearing, the Carrier repeatedly refused to give any reason for ordering the claimant to go to Jacksonville.
Under such circumstances I cannot agree that the Carrier's actions were in any wise proper; and I cannot agree that an employes' ignoring of clearly improper actions is insubordination. Insubordination is a deliberate refusal to obey proper directives properly made.
It follows that an essential element of insubordination was absent. The disciplinary action, therefore, was improper, and the majority erred in holding that it was supported by the evidence of record.