Case No. 3


    PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


          Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and Norfolk and Western Railway Company


` STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

          1. The Carrier violated the effective Agreement dated February 1, 1951, on May 13, 1977, without due cause, when it dismissed Claimants G. Dessausure, D. Dempsey and B. Strozier.


          2. The dismissal of the claimants was excessive, capricious, unwarranted and unjustified. The claimants now be restored to service with seniority unimpaired, and payment allowed for the assigned 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 employeesinvolved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employees,iithin the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.


    This Board has jurisidction over the dispute involved herein.


    OPINION:


          The Claimants in this case are an Assistant Section


    Foreman (Dessausure), a Trackman (Strozier) and a Laborer-


    Driver (Dempsey). The incident which resul.ted in their re-


    moval occurred on February 28, 1977 when, according to their


    section foreman, he instructed the Assistant Section Foreman


    to read the "Safety Rule" of the day, who refused. The

                                                  . as® /f3?

section foreman *en.purpdrtedly sought to*ave one of the other two employees read the rule, but was also refused. The time of this incident was about T:30 a.m. According to the Carrier, this. crew had three derailments to attend to that day, . but the members. refused to. go onto the job until the section foreman read the rule to them;, the. section foreman was illerate, or nearly so. He apparently left the site where the crew was assembled several times to attend to matters; upon his return, be purportedly entreated the crew to go to work, but was refused until he read the rule. Zt was not until another member of management appeared at the. site(trying to ascertain the

 whereabouts of the crew) and read the rule that the crew went.

 to work; this. was purportedly about 10:30 a.mr.According to. testimony of the Claimants, they were never asked ta read the= rule: or (in, the: case of the assistant foreman) was busy-doing other-things- They laid the,responsibility onto , the section foreman. for their late s.tart to work. According to the Organization, the Claimants. are long service employees with good work records; it also asserts that the Carrier bas failed. . to substantiate its case against the Claimants of insubordination and points to the weight of evidence favoring the Claimant's contentions..
 The Organization's contrary claims notwithstanding, we find no basks to conclude that the hearing (which was bifurcated) -2-
                                              ftau d- as~ .~ ~'3

was other than ·oper and objective. We ·so find that a careful review of the record, including the transcript of the hearing, lends more credence to the Carrier's recounting of events than that of the Claimants, which was essentially self-serving. We,feel this case is clear evidence of how a small, and exceedingly petty,action on the part of one or more employees can result in unwanted and unexpected results. The Claimants were clearly capricious in their refusal to comply with a reading of the rule. It is decidedly unbecoming of such seasoned veterans who, if they felt they had a complaint against their superior, had an obvious avenue to pursue such complaint -- the grievance procedure. While we might wonder whether a section foreman is "fully equipped" to fulfill his

 responsibilities if he cannot read, this is clearly no excuse'
 for the untoward actions of the Claimants in this matter. We
 are mindful that work was delayed Jfor several hours on derail
 ments by such events, as well.
 Nonetheless, we take note of the Organization's point that these are long-service employees with good work records. Assuming a lesson has been learned for the future, we shall

 order the return of the Claimants, with full seniority, but _

 with no back pay.
                                                  .4wd aL - a ~®,~7


      AWARD:

                                                                .


            Claimants shall be returned to work as of


      as set out in the Opinion.


                                r


. Oames F. Scearce
 _ NeutxaL Member
 _ C. Edwards GT. E. LaRue
 Carrier Member Organization Member
 Dated at (~.~ L-~zu this ~2- day of , 1980