NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-21406
David C. Randles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
( Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISF'JTE:
(Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and
( John H. McArthur, Trustees of the Property
( of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood,
GL-7963, that:
(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective
February 1, 196$, particularly Rule 6-A-1, when it assessed discipline
of "Dismissed in all Capacities", later reduced to a suspension from
May 15 to June 10, 1974, on Claimant, Miss Mary Christmas, Clerk in
the Carrier's Customer Accounting Department in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
(b) Claimant, Mary Christmas' record be cleared of the
charges brought against her on May 17, 1974.
(c) Claimant, Mary Christmas be compensated for wage loss
sustained during the period out of service.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant Mary Christmas entered the service of the
Carrier as a clerk at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on
June 19, 1967. As a result of alleged insubordinate conduct during the
afternoon of May 15, 1974, claimant was removed from service that day.
By a written notice dated May 17,
1974,
claimant was instructed to
attend an Investigation on May 21, 1974, in connection with the
following charge: "Insubordination, disobeying order of superior and
creating disturbance both prior to and subsequent to the
insubordination." The Investigation was held; claimant was present
and represented. As a result of the Investigation, the claimant was
dismissed from service; however, said dismissal was appealed to the
Superintendent of Labor Relations who, by letter on June 10, 1974,
extended leniency to the claimant reducing the discipline of dismissal
to a suspension. The discipline of suspension was appealed by the
Organization which contends that the charge did not comply with the
criteria of Rule 6-A-1 which requires said charges to be explicit. The
Organization notes in this regard that the charge is general and it
does not even note the date and time of said insubordination.
Award Number 21559 Page 2
Docket Number CL-21406
The Organization further contends that the hearing officer did not make
the finding which in and of itself invalidates the discipline, for it
is a denial of due process.
The Carrier asserts that there is substantial evidence in the
record which establishes the claimant's guilt of insubordination. The
testimony of the claimant's supervisor as well as the testimony of her
supervisor's superior support the fact that the claimant was
insubordinate. Each of these Carrier witnesses at the Investigation
testified as to his first-hand direct knowledge of said
insubordination. A third witness to the event heard the claimant tell
her supervisor "to get off her back" together with some strong epithets.
The claimant herself blamed the trouble on her supervisor; however,
such insubordination remained unchallenged in the record.
It is a general principle of labor relations and of the
arbitral process that employes must obey their supervisor's order
(except in situations affecting health and safety) and grieve later.
The claimant did neither.
The Organization contends that the charge was not explicit
which produced a situation at the Investigation which deprived the
claimant of due process in that not knowing the charge, she was unable
to prepare a defense.
The Board could sustain the claim if this were the only
reference to the act of insubordination; however, part of the record
is the letter from her superior, written on the day of her
insubordination and hand-delivered to her. The body of said letter is
as follows: "Notification is hereby given that you are held out of
service beginning May 15, 1974 - 4:00 P.m., in connection with
insubordination by disobeying a direct order of your Supervisor. You
will be advised promptly with regard to any further action that will
be taken." (Signed by R. E. Semerad, Manager-General Credit and
Collection) This letter, together with the Notice, leaves no doubt
in the opinion of the Board that the claimant knew the exact offense
and the date on which it occurred.
Relative to the allegation by the Organization that the
hearing officer did not make the determination of guilt or innocence,
there is no article or rule within the Agreement which prescribes who
shall conduct the hearing or that the official conducting the hearing
must be the one and the same person who makes the decision imposing
discipline. This fact is supported by many awards of this Board.
Award Number 21559 Page 3
Docket Number CL-21406
(Award 13383 - Hall, being one example.) If there is no reference in
the Agreement as to who shall make the decision regarding discipline,
then this Board may not stipulate that the Agreement was violated.
The claimant in this case was afforded due process,
including Notice and representation. The record of the Investigation
substantiates the charge of insubordination.
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
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
The claim is denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
AQ06tol~
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of May 1977.