Award No . 2q
Case No. 54
Public Law Board No. 2363
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
_TO
DISPUTE: and
Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
STATEMENT (1) The dismissal of Foreman P. D. Yates for
OF
CLAIM: alleged insubordination was without just and
sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to
the charge leveled against him.
(2) Foreman P. D. Yates shall be reinstated
with seniority and all other rights unimpaired
and compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS: Claimant, a foreman, was dismissed for insubor
dination. At the time of his termination, he
had occupied the position of foreman for about
nine years.
In the course of an inspection trip on Thursday
and Friday, August 3 and 4, 1978, Carrier found a considerable
number of defective rails and therefore found it necessary to
~3 co3
- s~w(~-c1 2
issue Slow Orders. Understandably, it was anxious to remove the
Slow Order and defective rail. It is not surprising therefore
that on Friday afternoon, August 4 at about 3 p.m., it advised
maintenance of way personnel that they would have to work on the
following day to that end.
Claimant was ordered on August 4 by Roadmaster
Horsley to report on Saturday,the following day, for that duty.
According to his testimony, he replied that he would be unable
to work on that day. Horsley testified, on the other hand, that
claimant "told me plainly that he was not going to work." The
difference,~i)L their versions are not significant. Claimant did
not reconsider his position during the ensuing conversations and
indeed did not show up for duty on Saturday.
At one point in their discussion, Horsley asked
claimant if his men would work. After a few minutes, claimant
returned with the advice that the men would not work either.
Horsley then reminded claimant that he had bid for the foreman's
position and it was his place to protect it. Claimant's reply,
according to Horsley ) was "Yes, but I had been working eight goddam months without a contract too."
Assistant Division Engineers Sandefur and Renner
then took turns speaking with claimant. Mr. Sandefur instructed
claimant to work that Saturday. Claimant, according to Mr.
Sandefur's testimony, refused on the ground that he had other
~3b3
-~eWo2a
things to do; when Mr. Sandefur told him to have the men work
also, he first replied that if Sandefur wanted to talk to the
men, he would get them to the phone. Mr. Sandefur reminded claim
ant that he was the foreman and he would give the men the instruc
tions. After a few minutes, claimant returned to the line and
informed Mr. Sandefur that the men had refused the Saturday work.
Mr. Renner then asked claimant to reconsider his
refusal since "we had rails to change out to get the slow orders
off."
We can well understand claimant's desire to have
a weekend that was free of work responsibility. He and his crew
r
had worked all that week and performed overtime. Saturday was
his assigned rest day.
On the other hand, his clear responsibility as
a regularly assigned foreman was to protect his position, even
though rest day work was involved. The instructions N
issue to
him by competent authority and were unambiguous and direct. He
was not being harassed with unnecessary overtime duty; manifestly,
the work in question was important and essential to efficient
railroad operations.
We are satisfied, in the light of this record,
that no sound basis exists for relieving claimant from his obli
gation as a foreman and employe to comply with orders. There is
no indication that compliance would have exposed him to any ap
preciable hazard. At the time of the incident and in his testi-
mony he .presented no persuasive explanation for his refusal
to work.
We find no ground for substituting our judgment
for that of Carrier in this matter.
AWARD:
Claim denied.
Adopted at Louisville, Kentucky, April ll) 1980.
,L,-o.oA,,
~~
West
on, CMirman
Membe: