NATIOIAL FAILRCAD ADJUST= 3 Ch' RD

.=.ward 2h:mber 22'_'-06

THIRD DIIIISICY Docket Number :-1:T-21838

John ?. Mead, Referee

('Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way E'ployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Colorado and Southern '-ilway Company

S?'=.TDIENT O_ CLADI: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) lie suspension of thirty (30) days imposed upon T,c -kan Larry Long was improper, disc=,-minatory and without just and sufficient cause (System File C-18-75%Kd-374).

(2) The personal record of Claimant Long be cleared of said suspension =..^.d reimbursement be made to him for wage loss suffered because of said suspension (?.
OPINION O· SC~J: Claimant's thirty (30) days suspension, which he s
now contesting as proper, discriminatory and
without just and sufficient case," :Jas i=osed by the Carries' for his
failure to comply with 5N Safety Rules 665 and 667, reading:

"665. Employees must report for duty at the designated time and place. They must be alert, attentive mad devote themselves exclusively to the Company's ser while on duty. They must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties with or substitute others in their place without proper authority."

"667. Employees must comply with instructions from the

p'r'bDer authority."

On the last day of the -cork week preceding a three day holiday weekend, essential equipment became inoperative and claimant requested permission to take the afternoon. off to attend to personal business.

f

Award Number 22006 Page 2

Docket Plumber W-21838

The permission was not granted, but claimant informed his foreman that he was going to leave anyway. He was told to "leave at his own risk," which he did.

Four other employees who also left work were suspended for 15 working days following an investigation for violation of Rule 665. Claimant requested postponement of his investigation and the disciplinarj action against him followed a hearing held one week later.

-The Board finds that comparison of the circumstances involving the other four employes leaving work with the claimant's actions, does not justify the substantially more severe penalty assessed against claimant. It is cle is not convincing that claimant's actions were insubordinate, warranting the additional 15 days suspension. Leave at your o;.n: risk" is not the clear-cut type of instruction upon which insubordination action is normally based, 30 days suspension was excessive.

Since one week of the 30 days suspension period included the postponement of the investigation requested by the claimant, the Board considers a 20 work day suspension to be appropriate and decides that claimant's suspension shall be reduced to 20 working days.

FIDIDI:IGS: 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 Carried a^d the Empioyes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Zmplcyes 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 suspension of thirty working days assessed against claimant was e:ccessive.

Award i:umber 22CC6 Paoe

Docket Number Y'd-21833

.4 W A R

Claim sustained to to extent indicated in the CPIJIC:·i APED FSiiDTTGS.

i`?ATIV^~A:, RA= C=.l% ADJj7JST:·=I BCiv7L'

:3y Order of Third Division

ATTEST: ,7 w z a .i~ '..y`'3
~xecut=ve Secretary

Dated az~ l.h1Ca50, _Tl-inci3, this l:ttf: day of -,ril 1978.