PARTIES) The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company TO ) DISPUTE) Brothex'hood of Maintenance of Way Eziployes

 ST:kTZ"MZNT OF CLAM: That the Carrier's decision to assess Claimants 33emerits each after investigation April 1, 1985, was unjust; That the Carrier now expunge 20 demerits from Clai-inants' records, reinl'ouraing them for all wage loss and expenses incurred as a result of attending the investigation April 1, 1955 because a review of the investigation transcript reveais that substantial evidence was not introduced that indicates Claimants are guilt; of violation of rules they were charged with.ia the Notice o.: Investigation.

 FI7v-iNG::: This Public Law Board No. 1502 fi:_ds tact the parties
 ner'~ein g re Carrier and employee within the -weaning of the Railwaj
 Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisictioa.

 In iris dispute, the claimants -were notified to attend a Zoruai investigation in Amarillo, Teaas, on April :_, =985, convernia~: their alleged refusal to perform duties as instructa.a by Lead Welder Calzada, and their alleged indifference to duty at Canadian or. 'March 12, 1935. Pursuant to the -investigation, the claimaxits were found guilty and each assessed 20 demerits. The Organization filed a claim in b=half of the claimants.

 Tae Board has examined the transcript of record, which contains 33 pages of testimony. The issue involved Herein is very nai&:cw and a very close question. Claimant D. R. Polk was found guilty of violating Rules 751 and 752B, Rules :Maintenance of Way and Structures, Fornr 1015 Standard. Claimants Renshaw and Enloe were found guilty of violating Rules 14 and 16, General Rules for the Guidance of Employes, 1978, Form 2626 Standard.

 Lead Welder Calzada testified that he told the three men that they were going to get some tools to tamp track. When the tools were brought by the Track Supervisor's truck, Claimant Polk said, "We don't want to do this" and Claimant Renshaw said, "We don't have to do this shit." Calzada testified that then Claimant Renshaw asked if they had an option and he said, "Not that I know of." The claimants then asked if they could go home and the Lead Welder stated that he would check with the Roadmaster. Tie then testified that he asked Mr. Cornejo who instructed him to "tell them to hit the road." The Lead Welder did so, and the employees went home. Mr. Cornejo is a Track Supervisor.




If the Carrier wanted the claimants to perform the work, they should have been instructed to do as they were told. It was unnecessary for the Lead Welder to check with anyone else. A11 he had to do was to tell the employees that he had been instructed to tamp track and he was likewise instructing them to do so. When he told them to "hit the road," he was, in effect, telling them they were permitted to go home.

 Under the circumstances, we believe that the Carrier has failed to establish that the claimants were guilty.

 AWARD: Claim sustained.

 ORDER: The Carrier is directad to comply with this award within t=Irty days from the date of this award.

                          Preston1J,. r?oore, Cacti man


                                2

                            nion r1em er


                          err eZ- :q em er


Dated at Chicago, Illinois

 June 5, 1985