NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSLI.J NT BOARD
T:-iL'AD D%ISI0 Docket Umcber MW-24069
Lamont E. Stallworth, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of ?gay Employes
PARTIES TO DISPU'T'E:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company
(Texas and Louisiana Lines)
STAT^,1=T OF CLAr-I: "Claim of the System Committee
o=
the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of Machine Operator R.
r.
Briscoe for violation of
'Rule 801' was without just and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate
to the offense with which charged (System File :~i1J-c0-111285-85-A)
___ -(2) Machine Operator R. E. Briscoe shall be reinstated with seniority,
vacation and all other r_v'^t., unimpaired and :._ ~h=11 be compensated for all
wage loss suffered.''
OP 71l0Y OF BOARD: _ Claimant R. E 9riscoe, was initially employed April 20,
1979 as a machine operator. In a letter. dated :::ay 2,
1900
the Claimant was told that he was dismissed from the service of the Carrier for
failure to follow the instructions of General Foreman J. C. Veretto and his
foreman in violation of Rule 801.
In a letter dated May 13, 1580, Claimant was granted a hearing on
May 27, 1980. Subsequent to the nearing the Claimant was notified by letter
dated ;lay 29, 1980 that his appeal was denied.
Carrier contends that Claimant Briscoe refused to follow the iastructisns
of his foreman and when General Foreman J. C. 7eretto told Claimant to do as h_
foreman instructed, Claimant still refused to carry out his foreman's instructions.
Claimant Briscoe was instructed to get a maul to drive a tie under the rail instead
of the pick he was using because the pick was unsatisfactory and unsafe for that
particular job.
Claimant Briscoe testified as follows:
Q. here ;, ,zu told by your foreman to get a ham:rer or a maul
to drive a tie under the rail?
A: Yes sir.
0 mere you using a tick
A: Yes sir.
Award Number 23986 Page 2
Docket Number M'a4-24069
"Q: Did you stop using the pick and go on and get a maul
to drive the tie under the rail?
A: No sir.
Q: Did Mr. Veretto then tell you to get a maul?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Did you go get a maul after Mr. Veretto told you to?
A: No sir.
Q: How
many times did Mr. Veretto tell you go get a maul?
A: Once.
Q:
Was there a maul available for you to go and get?
A: There was one further down the track.
Q: Was there any reason
why you
couldn't go and.get the maul
as you had been instructed?
A: No."
General Foreman Veretto testified that Claimant was instructed not to
use a pick because it was unsafe and that Claimant was told such.
Carrier maintains that if Claimant Briscoe felt that he was being
"hassled", his remedy lay in the grievance machinery of the current agreement by
complying with instructions given and then filing a claim or grievance (Third
Division Awards 12985, 10107 and 16286; Second Division Awards 1542, 6050 and
4782).
Carrier further maintains that the severity of the discipline was
,justified in light of the Claimant's previous record. The Claimant was suspended
from service of the Company without pay, February 14, 1980 for violation of Rule
801 - Falsification of Time Roll.
Claimant maintains that he did not refuse to comply with his supervisor's
instructions. Instead, Claimant failed to act upon the instructions given him
by General Foreman Veretto because he (Claimant) was in the process of performing
the work with the aid of a pick and because he was convinced that doing so was
the quickest method to perform the task. The Claimant notes that he was assisting
on the Hydra-Spiker at the time of the incident and that no one had instructed
him to do this. He did this to help catch up on the work.
Award Plumber 2396 Page
3
Docket Nu.Tber P?W-24069
Claimant further maintains that an unprovoked verbal abuse by
General Foreman Veretto had an adverse effect on his attitude toward his
supervisor. The Claimant testified as follows:
"Q: why didn't you go get the maul?
A: Because Mr. Veretto started hollering and screaming at me.
Claimant Briscoe farther testified:
Q: How many trees did Mr. Veretto tell you to go get the maul
before he started yelling and screaming at you?
A: Once.
Q: Did Mr. Veretto curse at you?
A: Yes.
General Foreman Veretto did not deny that he used abusive language
in his testimony.
Claimant maintains that while. he may have exercised poor judgement,
the dismissal under the circumstances involved here was wholly disproportionate
to the offense. (Awards
6038,
10790 and 11622). Further, dismissal was exceedingly harsh given the testimony of General Forema
was a good worker and a good employee.
The Board has carefully considered the record in this -.tter. -'.'.^.e
Board concludes that by Claimants own admission he failed to obey the orders of
his foreman. Awards from all Divisions clearly support the
proposition
that
insubordination is a serious infraction. the Board has weld that employes, as
a rule, should "-cork (obey) =ow and grieve later." Claimant _"ailed to abide
by this principle. Consequently, Board denies the claim.
FIIDl;IIGS: Pr^.e Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
`i"rat the parties waived oral hearing;
Znat the C4rrier and the Employes involved in znis dim^utte are
resp°_C-iv°ly Carrier and Employes within tae meaning of .'.::e Railway iatoT'
A^-,
as arproved .iune 21,
~93i
this Division o_' -he AdJuS_ent Board has ~;.LT=odic-ion
over
.,_...
disp u-a involved .._r e- n; and
:ha-,
the .;~ee_en_
has not -.i4olated.
Award Number
23986
Page
4
Docket Number L-yd-2:+069
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ALITUSUENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of August 191.2.
