NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-21020
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(The Alton & Southern Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The suspension of sixty (60) days imposed upon Track Foreman
Henry Moten was without just and sufficient cause (System File K-1638-31).
(2) The charge against Track Foreman Henry Moten be stricken from
the record and he be compensated for all monetary loss suffered, all in accordance with Rule 20A(d).
OPINION OF BOARD: Although Claimant is a Track Foreman, he and his crew also
receive instructions from the Signal Department. On August
9, 1972, he was performing a joint project with certain signal employes. When
it started raining on that date, he instructed his crew to seek shelter in the
roundhouse, but, because he had been given specific instructions to "guard the
track drill", he sought shelter in a caboose; from which he could observe the
drill.
Claimant was charged with failure to comply with certain instructions
and, subsequent to investigation, was assessed a sixty (60) day suspension.
It is conceded that Claimant had been instructed by the Track Department Roadmaster not to enter cab
in this case, he had been instructed by Signal Department officers to guard the
drill, and thus, when it started raining he was placed "...in an awkward and
confusing position of deciding with which instructions to comply."
Carrier notes that Claimant signed and returned the following letter
of instruction:
"Effective immediately no employe in the M/W Department will
be permitted in or on cabooses or other railroad cars unless
they are involved with their line of duty such as a work train.
Anyone violating this rule will be properly disciplined."
Moreover, it asserts that this record shows no conflict in instructions.
The Board will freely concede that conflicting instructions can generate a confusion to the point th
there is joint supervision. But, we are unable to conclude, under this record,
Award Number 21062 Page 2
Docket Number MW-21020
that Claimant was placed in any such dilemma. He knew he was not to enter
cabooses. Had his only reasonable avenue of compliance with instructions
concerning the drill been to disregard the prior instruction, then of course,
we would consider the dispute in that light. But here, there is no suggestion that entry into the ca
Rather, it appears that such action was merely convenient.
While the length of the suspension appears to be rather significant,
at the same time, it would not appear to be arbitrary or capricious. Thus,
we are precluded from substituting our judgment for that of Carrier.
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 BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1976.