. 0 AWa'ez No. a

PUBLIC LAW BOARD 1837

(MW-MUN-77-54) Case No. 2 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees vs Norfolk and Western Railway Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

1. The carrier violated the effective Agreement dated`February 1, 1951, when it dismissed the claimant C. R. Bennett, Jr.

2. The discipline of dismissal is excessive, harsh
and unjust for the offense charged. The claimant
now be restored to service with seniority and
rights unimpaired and payment allowed for the as
signed.working hours actually lost, less any
earnings in the service of the Company.
FINDINGS: _

This Board upon the whole record and all the evidence finds that:

The carrier and the employee involved in this dispute are respec
tively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act, as amended.
This Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
OPINION:
The claimant was removed from service on the basis of a
single incident which occurred on May 11, 1977.when, near the
close of his shift, he left his assigned position and refused.
to return at the directive of the Roadmaster asserting, instead,
that he was going to wait for his ride. According to the Road-
master's- testimofy, the person with whom fe Claimant was to ride remained at work. until properly relieved.

The. record of this case shows that the Claimant was

I

duly notified to appear for a formal investigative hearing.
on May Z6, 1977 but, for reasons not afforded either the Car
rier or his representative with the Organization, he failed
to appear.. The- Organization endeavored to construct its de
fense principally upon. the. testimony of the. Roadmaster,:
suggesting that` he. gave the Claimant.permission to leave. While
the Roadmaster'a statement (before the May Z6, 1977 investiga
tion) may bave had elements, of equivocation in it, we shall not
be moved to such a position-.. The record sufficiently indicates
that the Claimant unilaterally decided he had worked long
enough an May 11,,1-977 and,- if not insubordinate, was clearly
non cooperative. Such disdain for authority was amplified by
his apparent decision not to:_appear for the May Z6, 1977 proceed
ing_ while wee. might agree.& sufficient explanation might have
mitigated the May 11-_ 1-97? incident, such. was not forthcoming;
insstead, the problem was-compounded by-the. Claimant's non
appearance. While we give the Organization, high marks for its
efforts to do for the Claimant-that which he apparently chose
not to do for himself -- regain his, job -- we are inclined to
conclude that the Claimant. himself chose the end result by
his lack of interest to appear in his own behalf.
-2-

i

AWARD:

Claim is denied.

,'James F. Scearce
Neutral Member

G. C. Edwards
Carrier Member

,4wd. ay- 0Y37

W. E. LaRue
Organization Member

Dated at ,6-lpkAu~Jr , c a.0. this -Z,-,2 day of ~ Z t~.c^GL 1980