NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-26989
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Soo Line Railroad Company (former Chicago, Milwaukee, St.
(Paul and Pacific Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The sixty (60) calendar days of suspension imposed upon Laborer
D. H. Vernon for alleged failure 'to comply with your Foreman's instructions
and leaving your job without proper authority' was arbitrary, capricious and
without just and sufficient cause (System File C /I25-84/D-2667-1).
2. The claimant's record shall be cleared of the charges leveled
against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant has been employed by the Carrier as a Section
Laborer for eleven years. His record in that period of
time contains no disciplinary entry. However, the Claimant was notified on
August 23, 1984, that he was being suspended from service for a period of
sixty calendar days because he had refused to install anchors as instructed by
his Foreman and had left his position on August 14, 1984.
The Organization contests the propriety of the disciplinary suspension. It provided representati
September 5, 1984, and has progressed the dispute to this Board on behalf of
the Claimant. The Organization holds that the Claimant sustained an injury or
aggravated an old injury when closing doors on a railroad car. Thereupon, the
Claimant advised his Foreman that he had sustained an injury and that he was
leaving at 10 A.M. on August 14, 1984, to seek medical treatment. When the
Claimant returned to duty on August 15, 1984, he furnished the Foreman with a
statement from his doctor. In this set of circumstances, the Organization
contends that discipline is not justified.
On the other hand, the Carrier's position is that the Claimant did
not inform his Foreman that he had sustained an injury while closing doors to
the railroad car and did not inform the Foreman he was leaving work for the
purpose of obtaining medical treatment. Finally, the Carrier points out that
the Claimant did not fill out a Form 171 injury report for the day in question. Hence, it is the Car
with his Foreman's instructions and left his assignment without proper authority on August 14, 1984.
Award Number 26716 Page 2
Docket Number MW-26989
The testimony of the Section Foreman is dispositive to the fact that
the Claimant failed to notify him of having sustained an injury while closing
a door on a railroad car and failed to notify the Section Foreman that he was
leaving work to obtain medical treatment. Another Section Laborer was present
with the Claimant and the Section Foreman and he was instructed to put on rail
anchors with the Claimant. This Section Laborer appeared as a witness at the
Hearing and his testimony corroborated the testimony of the Section Foreman.
The record is also clear that the Claimant returned to the Section
Foreman and asked if he would like a doctor's certificate. Subsequently, the
Claimant did keep a doctor's appointment at 1:45 P.M. on August 14, 1984, and
furnished a certificate from that doctor to the Section Foreman on the morning
of August 15, 1984. Finally, the Section Foreman admits that he did not inform the Claimant that he
We find that the charges of the Claimant failing to comply with his
Foreman's instructions and leaving his job without proper authority are substantiated in the record.
Claimant left work with the tacit permission of his Foreman.
Upon due consideration of the entire record, we concur that a disciplinary penalty is justified
is excessive. This is the first occasion on which the Claimant has been
disciplined in a period of eleven years of service and he was not cautioned
that he was leaving work without proper authority when he did so. Consequently, we conclude that no
justified on the circumstances here. We therefore direct that the Claimant be
compensated for such wage loss as he incurred over and above a forty-five day
suspension.
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 discipline was excessive.
Award Number 26716 Page 3
Docket Number MW-26989
Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
"A4t,'
Nancy J. De er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of November 1987.