PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
Award Number 20986
Docket Number MW-21149
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of B&B Welder Pedro Meza for alleged insubordination was without just and
(2) B&B Welder Pedro Meza be reinstated with seniority, vacation
and all other rights unimpaired and that he be compensated for all wage lobs
suffered in compliance with the Rule 45(b).
OPINION OF BOARD: On December 21, 1973, Claimant was notified of a hearing
concerning an asserted violation of Rule 801:
"Employes will not be retained in the service who are
insubordinate."
Subsequent to the hearing, Claimant was dismissed from service -
for refusal to accept instructions from his immediate Supervisor on December
17, 1973.
The record demonstrates that on December 17, 1973, Assistant Foreman, Comeau, and Claimant had a
stated that Claimant refused to perform an assignment in the manner instructed.
After; explanation of the reasons why it should be done in a certain way, Claimant "flatly refused t
take orders from an Assistant Foreman - however, he desired to discuss the matter with his "union ma
The record is clear to this Board that Claimant was aware that Comeau
was an Assistant Foreman and that Company rules required that he take orders
from a person designated as such.
Claimant testified that on December 17, he made a suggestion to Comeau regarding an alternate me
gave him an option of how to do the work. Carrier witnesses deny Claimant's
version. Moreover, Claimant denies that he told the Assistant Supervisor -
on that date - that he would not take orders from Comeau. He concedes, however, that on the later da
Assistant Foreman's orders.
Award Number 20986 Page 2
Even if we were to conclude that the evidence supported only the
Claimant's version of the events of December 17, 1973 (and we make no such
conclusion in that regard), we would still be faced with the Claimant's
admitted statement on a later date. After he was fully advised of the pertinent factors, and after h
Claimant was clearly insubordinate (even without regard to his actions and
statements of the previous date), and the Carrier was justified in taking
action to dismiss him from service.
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 not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
,2/(/i
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1976.