NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-23045
James F. Scearce, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE;
(Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM; "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that;
(1) The discipline (30 days' suspension) assessed Trackman B. L.
Smith, Sr. was without just or sufficient cause, unwarranted and in violation
of the Agreement. /System File C-4(13)-BLS/.
(2) The claimant's record shall be cleared of the charge placed
against him and he shall be reimbursed for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: The dispute culminating in this Claim centers on the intent
of Carrier management as related to
events on
October 6,
1977. On that date the Claimant, as a member of a Rail Gang, reacted negatively
to admonishment by his supervisor for he and the other members of his crew to
pick up the pace of work. (This crew was remDving tie plates and plugging the
holes as part of the gang's overall responsibility to replace jointed rail with
ribbon rail.) The Claimant advised he could nit work any faster than he was
going and asked for a transfer to another crew -- a request that was denied.
His continued negative response to a return to work at a stepped-up pace drew a
decision from the Carrier to stop his time. Later on that day, he was issued a
letter which identified his earlier actions as a refusal to work, as having
walked off the job and as having quit. Subsequent discussions and correspondence
resulted in the Carrier's planned termination 3f the Claimant's service to be
altered in favor of permitting him to return; the 30-day period he was out of
service was not to be compensable. Thus, the dispute arises over the period of
time the Claimant was out of service which the Organization considers a disci
plinary suspension, without pay, and which the Carrier contends resulted from a
voluntary withdrawal from service. and ended by a display of the Claimant's
desire to return to work.
This case turns on the intent of the Claimant and actions of Carrier
supervision on October 6, 1977. Obviously this Board cannot divine the actual
events of that confrontation. Thus, it is obliged to assess the 'testimony of
the principles involved -- the Claimant and two (2) supervisors. In so doing,
we are led to the conclusion that the basis for the Claimant's termination of
service arose out of his unwillingness to react positively to management's
Award Number 23129
Docket Number N&T-23045 Page 2
admonition to pick up the pace. If the Claimant was physically incapable of
performing the work as assigned, he would have been better advised to bring this
to the attention of management at the outset of work that day. Instead, the
discussion with the foreman came in mid-afternoon. While the loss in compensation
to the Claimant as a result of this incident is considerable, we find no reason
to intervene since this Board views the events of October 6, 1977 not as a disciplinary action, but
Claimant's intent to withdraw from service rather than pick up the pace of work.
As such, however, we conclude that his personnel file and work record should not
reflect or imply any disciplinary action. The period the Claimant was out of
service should be credited to him for seniority purposes and should only be cited
as a time period for which no pay was received.
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
Maim disposed of is
accordance vith Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
&64~=
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
IM
day of
Jammry 1981.
c,;
c·o
0f,
f,'
ic,
- `'