Parties: Brotherhood of Locomotive Fhgineers
 and
 Sacramento Northern Railway

Disoussion; On t·.e claim date, the Claimant Engineer was regularly
 assigned to ,lob S-601 operating between Pittsburg and Sacramento. Tr.e
 Claimant went on duty at 9:00 A. M. at Pittsburg. Between 9:00 A.M. and
 11:00 :..h:., the crew made one switch. The Carrier asserted that between
 11:00 A.M. and ?:00 P. Y.. the crew performed no work, because they were
 waiting for empty steel gondolas to bring back to Sacramento. Between
 ?:00 i.!, and L:45 P. M. the crew worked Pt making up its train and at
 :45 P.'!. it departed Pittsburg for its home terminal of Sacramento. :s the crew was approaching Stockton, 44 miles from South Sacramento, Conductor ::cGlomery, at 5:30 P. M. requested permission of the Dispatcher to go eat at Stockton. Mr. McGlonery testified that he was neither given permission or denied permission to go eat because the Dispatchers radio was not understandable. Dispatcher Baird conceded that he was not able to communicate with the crew because of a faulty radio. However, the evidence indicated that Superintendent Metadorf testified that at about 4:45 P. M. he had notified Assistant Chief Dispatcher Goolsby that it was urgent to get the Claimants Train back to Sacramento and that box lunches should be orovided for the crew at Stockton and they should be directed to proceed to Sacramento. Because of the difficulty of camnunicating with

                                        ~ase No. 1


the crew by .radio .Terminal Trainmaster Lorda at Stockton reached the
 should p. cno crew at the yard and informed them that they si.0ut u accept ·Le lw ..~:r.~.h_..., and proceed to Sacramento. Yardmaster :wodlt had already spoken to the crew and they had informed :.im that trey would not accept the lunches but instead were going to a restaurant in Stockton, and the Yardmaster had communicated this to .'r. Lorda. Mr. Lorda ordered the lunches and then accompanied `y ''.r. ^iumphries, Assistant Shop Superintendent, went out to the yards where the .1aimant's train was located.
 ur. Lorda testified he went uo to the crew, introducing himself, and told :onductor :icGlonery to accept the lunches and go on to Sacramento. He added the :onductor asked him if he would put it in writing that he was refusing permission for the crew to go to a restau. rant. Trainmaster Lorda replied that he would not put it in writing, out

                            . _.._ l___t__ __., __ _ ._

stated that ne was ordering them to accept cne mncnra and pu .Vu C ___.___
                                            .uawame;nw.

vr. Lorda testified that at this point the Claimant stated that he was refusing the lunch and going to a restaurant to eat. The Tr=inmaster stated he ordered the Claimant to accept the lunch and take the train to Sacramento, but the Claimant stated, "No. ttm going to the restaurant." The Trainmaster testified that at this point he took the Claimant out of service.

              Thn f'luimen4 tna4iPiorl thn4 nnriin rorant.inn vnS nnnr


but they had told the Tower they were going to eat at a restaurant. On their way to the restaurant they met Trainmaster Lorda. The Claimant stated that .'^r. Lorda asked him if he would accept a box lunch and the Claimant replied, "".o." Fe stated that the Trainmaster then told him he was out of service, and that was the extent of the conversation. The Claimant denied
                                      Award .'o. .ase :~o. _

_ j _ that ne was instructed to take the train to Sacramento. The :leimant

                        .he H ,; teen, ,r +v n 1, u s

added t::at ;le t3id the TralrLTiastei a~ c crew cu . a .. ..~ ..~ .. e , ,.
 and deserved a hot meal.
 .:n the basis of the above stated facts herein set forth in a capsulized version, the Claimant was removed from service, and given a duly noticed investigation and found guilty of 'ceing insubordinate, and dischareed from the service.
 Ft a loard session held on "arch 9, 19?8, after he=r?ng oral araunent from the Parties, t^e Board met in executive session and issued an interi^. Award and Order, restoring to Claimant to his position and reserving for future determination the matter of back pay, if any.

              The detailed respective positions of the parties are:


                      Carr,er

                        : ~ 11 ~ *

The Carrier stated that the evidence of record clearly shows that the Claimant was guilty of insubordinate conduct. The record is clear that the Claimant was not merely ordered to accept a box lunch, but also directed to take his train to Sacramento. The Carrier noted that the Claimant was obligated to take his train to Sacramento since that vas the final terminal. The Claimant, as an experienced railroader, knew that

 the Carrier vnn+a.i h;.n +~ +hLe 1.;e +..~;.. ._.;+t,e..+ .iala +e Ca~w...,.e.,s..
The Carrier stated it is indeed a specious argument that the '-arrier only wanted the Claimant to accept a box lunch. The Carrier did not dismiss the Claimant for refusing to accept a box lunch, but rather dismissed an employee who refused to continue his assignment and move his train to its final terminal unless he was permitted to delay
 _ L _ the train at an intermedi=to point while ^e went off to a restaurant t: eat. this s;rt of conduct constitutes insubordination properly deserving disciolin=.
 -f-,e Carrier stated that a review of the entire record will ennn~rt tho Carrirrfa nnsition that the Zialmant was 2Uilty as cnareed. and while the °oard may have found it proper to convert his dismissal to a susnension, the evidence does not warrant awarding him any back pay for his immermissicle conduct.

                      Vr~1ZaL~JR

.."he Organization first alludes to Article 7b of the Schedule Egreement which provides that freigrt engineers will be given a reasonable time to eat cetween terminals, but ,must notify the Dispatcher in advance wren they intend to do so. The Organization stated the record does not reveal sucn compelling circumstances that would permit the Carrier to vitiate = clear contractual right of the Claimant and his crew. In the case at hand. the Conductor notified the Disnatcher at Stockton that the crew wanted to go to a restaurant to get something to eat. The crew had been on duty eight hours and 40 minutes without any food and it was not unreasonable for them to wish to go to a clean place where they could enjoy a meal without the noise, dust and tension present when eating a L__ ,..__._ __ _ ____s_._ 'Locomoti
 bve. lunch on a moving ve.
 The Carrier has alleged but not proved that a situation prevailed in Sacramento that demanded the crew forgo its dinner at Stockton in order to bring the train back to Sacramento without having a dinner break to which they were contractually entitled to reserve.
 The Organization further stated that even if there was an important connection for the Claimant®s train to make in Sacramento,
                                        Award .,. _ Case No.~_


                        e C _


there is no evidence in the record to indicate that r.ad the Claimant and crew had gone to dinner at a restaurant in Stockton, that they would not have arrived in Sacramento before "outlawed" by the yours of Service Law and still in time to make the connection.

              '~hn Irgarinntinn C4eV'w/~ T."e~ i~' V(9G n1 ~1nTG~Cnn0^Iw


for the Claimant who had been on duty over eight hours, and who was tired, sweaty and hungry, to want to exercise his contractual right to eat. :ie only wanted to wash up and eat a decent meal in suitable enviroment.
 The Organization further contended that the Claimant was not guilty of insubordination because he was never given a direct order to go to Sacramento. The Claimant was a senior engineer and a union. representative. who was determined not to accent a box lunch. Trainmaster Lords ordered the Claimant and crew to accept the lunch. When the Claimant refused, he took him out of service. Mr. Lords, never stated to the Claimant that he was ordering him to take his train to Sacramento. If that direct order had been given, the Claimant would have complied. But the Trainmaster acted in anger and prematurely. However, the Claimant never refused an order to take his train to Sacramento and thus was not guilty of insubordination. U1 that the evidence indicates is that the Claimant was

 ordered to accept a box lunch which he refused. An employee has a right to refuse to eat a Carrier's offered meal without being guilty of insubordination.

              The Organization states that it is familiar with the


_, _.,_ general rules and pr inCiuieS governing in9iibvi-din&tion. iwever, it asserted the right of the Carrier to have its orders complied with is not
 absolute and there is support for the argument that an employee who is sustained by an unambiguous provision of a Contract may refuse an order from a superior.
                                        Award "~. - Case No. -


                        - e -

In short the Organization stated that the Claimant acted under a color of contractual right to take his meal in a restaurant, and secondly, '.he was never given a direct order to proceed to Sacramento

 so that he was not guilty of refusing to obey or comply with a direct
 order, and herefuorc he was ne ..+ guilty ..v of nY1nPA1/9+;n
 uca, amu tvc...c-~.. ~. ...,.,.__.,.-...._...,..

 Findings: The coard, upon the wnole record and all the evidence,
 finds that the ecroloyee and Carrier are Employee and Carrier within the
 meaning of the =.ailway Labor Act; that the Board has iuri3diction over
 the dispute and that the parties to the dispute were given due notice of
 the hearing thereon.
 The -oard finds that the weight of the probative evidence supports the C rrier's position that the Claimant engaged in insubordinate and contumacious conduct, and refused to take his train on to Sacramento until he had an opportunity to eat dinner in a restaurant. The Board finds that the Claimant and cr-w ,,Pr, not contesting with the

 Carrierls supervisory officers whether they should accept a box lunch, but rather wnether they should accept a box lunch and continue on their trip to Sacramento or whether they could decline the box lunch and go to a restaurant for dinner and then continue to their home terminal. The record is replete with direct evidence that the Claimant refused to accept the box lunch and continue uninterruptedly to Sacramento. This was impermissible conduct on the part of the Claimant and is conduct for which

 h® nn..lfi tnnoivn <nannn .i;en;nli n+1n T+ ,.l ii ,....in+®la ..V._
vert the employer-employee relationship to allow en employee to determine

 which instruction he would obey and which he would not, absent a situation
                                        ,.ward So' 1

                                        Case No, 1


where compliance with the given instructions would place the Claimant in imminent danger of life or limo. If the Claimant believed his contractual rights were being bresc:^ed when he was not allowed to go to the restaurant in Stockton, he had to comply =nd then grieve the alleged breach of 1rticlo 76. H® had no valid basis to refuse the instructions of hi=_

 supervisory officers. :o permit an employee to resort to self help in order to enforce the Agreement, is to permit the rubric by which labor. m=nagement rs-lations are conducted, to become a nullity. T,.e civilities and ameniti=s of orderly conduct which is the ce^ent that holds together,

                                    . . ai o dmanA_

in large measure, our SySte.^. OS industrial and labor ?eialwuw3,uwnamus that the practitioners thereof, comply with employer directives and then seek to adjudicate any differences that arise out of the Application and interpretation of the contested contract provisions. To allow affected employees to make thrir own determinations ®s to whether they will comply with the rules is in effect to do array with the "rule of lasrit which has

 teen estatlished over a period of many years in this Industry.

              mt_ Board has restored the C1ai-nni ·n hie inhhs_

              itle Board 1laD denYW cv Ym- Vsat.,_aav .r ..er ~v_) _r-


cause it finds that dismissal was too severe a penalty for An employee with over 30 years seniority, rather than that he was innocent of the charges. However, the Claimant must realize that he had come to the end of the road insofar as refusing to comply with instruction from duly constitued authority. While there are n--ny avenues of relief available to the Clai:nent to protest Carrier instructions which he be-

 lieves nntnont_ellv in ownw in®u'nnrdin·tinn i4 not M"2 of M.

              The __°.o*rd puts the Claimant on clear and explicit

                                        nwar7 :10. - -ase .`:o.

                                              1

_ d _ notice gnat =ny repetition of insubordinate conduct may result in his quick and certai^ re^cval from, the employment of the _arrier.

 Award: Claimant'°_ discharge converted to a suspension,
 seni~rity unimpared, 'ut Wit. no back pay awarded.
 Order: 'he Carrier should immediately comply with tr.e
 :.ward, if it has not already done so.

      ~® n ~. s n

      Jacob Sei a erg, h=ei~m7nan and Neutral ' b er

      s


e r e oy®e clan er .. a entry, .arm r emb-er

            e,197