Corrected Copy



NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

(SUPPLEMENTAL)




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE & STEAMSHIP

CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION

EMPLOYES



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6359) that:







OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was working his assigned hours on December 3, 1966, sorting and loading mail onto chutes. He was called to work at a location called the "Glass House". At this location, conveyor )elts were operating at various levels to carry mail to various locations within the mail terminal. On this date, a conveyer belt became overloaded and jammed. The Assistant Foreman ordered the Claimant and two other nen to go down and break the jam. The Claimant refused giving as his ,eason the fact that he considered it dangerous and was in fear of bodily njury. This Claimant was suspended pending an investigation which was held )n December 16, 1966. This investigation resulted in a reprimand and a LO days suspension for Claimant. The transcript of the investigation dis-

·.loses that the Mail Foreman had stopped the conveyor belt and that the safety was on. The Claimant contends that he was never informed of this 'act, and, therefore, he was not required to undertake this mission because >f his fear of bodily harm. The Organization cites Second Division Award :540, Third Division Award 14067 and First Division Awards 14266, 15532 ind 17398 as authority for Claimant's right to refuse the order of the kssistant Foreman.


The Carrier contends that the 10 days suspension was justified on the 'acts and circumstances surrounding this case and that this Claimant was insubordinate by refusing to obey an order. Carrier cites for authority Third Avision Awards 1265, 1242, 1543, 3260 and 3340.

It is the opinion of this Board that the transcript discloses that although the Carrier did not inform this Claimant that the conveyor belt had stopped and could not run because the safety was on, that this should have been apparent to Claimant and could have been ascertained, if this fact alone bothered him, by a simple inquiry. As stated in Second Division Award 2134:



The transcript further discloses that although this particular Claimant had not been called upon to break a jam prior to the date of this claim, the evidence further discloses that it was a common duty of mail handlers at this location to break jams when they occurred. The description of duties assigned to this type of job required tbis Claimant to be able to "operate controls of conveyor belt system when necessary".




FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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














Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of May 1969.

Central Publishing Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.A.

17102 2