NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-24680
Ida Klaus, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Railway System (Central of Georgia
( Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The sixty (60) days of
suspension imposed
upon Laborer R. L.
Jones for alleged failure "to follow instructions issued by your Foreman" on
June 10, 1980 was excessive and without just and sufficient cause (Carrier's
File MW-290).
(2) The claimant's record shall be cleared and he shall be compensated
for all wage loss suffered.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim challenges the validity of a 60-day
suspension
of the Claimant for alleged failure to follow his foreman's
orders.
On June 10, 1980, the Claimant was working as a Laborer with Tie
Patch Gang Number 2. As work was beginning, the Foreman instructed him to
assist another &nploye in greasing his machine. Score two or three minutes
later the Foreman saw that the Claimant had not yet gone to carry out his instructic
and assigned another Employe to the job. As a result of this, a brief verbal
altercation took place between the Foreman and the Claimant after which the
Foreman instructed the Claimant to get 50 spikes from the pile. The Claimant
did not follow the instruction and remarked that this was a trivial job. He
walked away from the Fbreman in a direction opposite that of the spike pile.
The Foreman became angry and called the Claimant "boy", to which the Claimant
replied, "Don't call me boy". The Claimant performed neither job.
The Carrier argues that the failure to obey the Foreman was willful.
It notes that neither instruction was carried out and that the Claimant criticized
the Foreman's second instruction. In assessing the 60 day suspension, the
Carrier states that it took into account a prior five day suspension imposed on
the Claimant in 1979 for refusing to work.
The Organization contends that the Claimant never actually refused to
perform the work; it asserts that he was prevented from doing so by the Foreman,
who singled the Claimant out for harassment and discrimination and provoked an
argument with him. It stressed particularly the Foreman's use of the word
"boy". The Organization also maintains that the introduction into the investigation
of the Claimant's alleged past record prevented an impartial and fair determination.
Award Number 25454 Page 2
Ib cket Number Mr-24680
Upon careful review of the record, the Board concludes that the charge
is supported by substantial credible evidence. The record establishes that the
Claimant simply refused to perform the jobs given to him and that no extenuating
circumstances existed to excuse his failure to follow instructions. The
Claimant showed no disposition to perform work assigned to him. He made no
move to begin any work for the day. He criticized his assignment and refused
to perform it. There is no evidence to support the organization's argument that
the Claimant was being harassed or discriminated against. While the foreman's
use of the term "boy· is inexcusable, there is no evidence that the Claimant
was more than momentarily deterred by the use of that word or that he refused
to carry out the instructions because of it.
Failure
tD
obey instructions is a serious offense. It subverts the
C'arrier's ability to manage its operations. In light of the seriousness of the
offense, the Claimant's prior suspension, and the absence of any factors
mitigating the offensive behavior, we cannot find that the 60 day suspension
was excessive or otherwise unreasonable.
The introduction of the Claimant's prior discipline did not render
the investigation unfair. We must allow the penalty to stand.
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
Mat the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BQARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Nancy J.~Z7ever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of May 1985.