NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Robert C. McCandless, Referee

(1) The dismissal of Laborers J. W. Uthe, J. F. Crawford, C. Burris, C. R. Duffield and L, E. Diegelman was unjust, improper and on the basis of unproven charges. (System file 4-D-293).

(2) Laborers J. W. Uthe, J. F. Crawford, C. Burris, C. R. Duffield and L. E. Diegelman be reinstated with all rights unimpaired and compensated for all wage loss suffered in accordance with the provisions of Rule 19."

"Rule E-Employes must render every assistance in their power in carrying out the rules and instructions. Courteous cooperation between employes is required for proper function under the rules and instructions."

"Rule N-Employes who are careless of the safety of themselves and others, negligent, insubordinate, dishonest, immoral, quarrelsome, or otherwise vicious, or who do not conduct themselves in such a manner and handle their personal obligations in such a way that their railroad will not be subject to criticism or loss of good will, will not be retained in the service." (Emphasis Added)

"Rule O-Employes must report at the proper time, devote themselves exclusively to their duties, must not absent themselves, nor exchange duties with or substitute others in their place without proper authority."

Further, Employes contend that the length of service of these Claimants and the lack of disciplinary records against them should mitigate against the ultimate discipline of dismissal.

This Board is compelled to state that the hearing and the transcript thereof sheds little light on what actually happened or why these men of long, and evidently satisfactory, service should refuse to ride in a particular truck. In First Division Award 12031 it was stated: "Obviously there must be some one in authority if a railroad is to function. Engineer Ray refused to acknowledge orders from those in authority and should such action be condoned it could easily lead to confusion and the disruption of proper operation of the railroad." It was also said in First Division Award 15509 that "willful disobedience of orders constitutes insubordination which merits discipline. If. the Carrier is to have efficient operations on its railroad, employees must be relied upon to obey operating instructions and orders." This Board subscribes to those statements.

However, lamentable though it may be that the representatives of these Claimants at the hearing did not make it clearer as to why these men did not articulate their reasons for refusing to ride in that particular vehicle, we feel that both safety and length of service must mitigate from allowing Carrier to mete out the extreme punishment upon these Claimants. We feel, as was said in First Division Award 17398, that this was not arbitrary or intentional resistance to authority. The Board said there: "Essentially Claimants were insisting upon safety devices or some substitute, to which they honestly believed they were entitled. The Board said there: "Essentially Claimants were insisting upon safety devices or some substitute, to which they honestly believed they were entitled. And although the Assistant Road Foreman of Engines was as reluctant as Claimants were to force the issue, it seems plain that Claimants intended to stand their ground."

This Board finds that the nearly two years time during which these Claimants have been out of service without pay should be sufficient discipline for any wrongdoing, although not malicious, on their part. However, the Board in no way backs away from its position that Carrier must maintain its equipment properly and measure up to the strictest safety standards on its property if its expects the obedience, discipline and respect of its employees.

Consequently, we deny the claim as to back compensation, but we sustain that part of the claim requesting reinstatement.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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 the Agreement was violated.

AWARD

Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: S. H. Sehulty

Executive Secretary

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Nicholas H. Zumas, Referee

PARTIES TO DISPUTE: