. u,. W- Wiles, November 22, 19!78.

















PLB 2420 -2- AWARD NO. Z


After study of the record of trial and consideration of the positions put before this Board by the parties, we finds
employees of the Carrier's Maintenance of Way Shop at Canton, Ohio,
 who are members of Local qoso Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
 Employees, desisted from work in a- strike action at that location
 and took up positions at various entrances of this shop as well as
 3t entrances to related facilities variously located, accompanied by
 signs to the effect that they Were ~on strike in sympathy with n&W'· -
 a reference to negotiations between another Onion (Brotherhood of
 Railway Clerks) and the Norfolk & Western Railroad which. had pur
 portedly reached a considerable period of delay, between those parties
 in, resolving the B.R.A.C. petition for a contract amend.~nent.

 2. The MW Repair Shop at Canton is Carrier's central
 maintenance facility responsible for heavy rebuilding of on-track
 machinery. It operates on two shifts and has a normal complement
 of 225 W employees, as well as approximately, 25 miscellaneous clerks.

 3. It is also undisputed that approximately 400 employees in the Carton shop and yard facilities failed to appear for work during
 PLB 2420 -3- AWARD NO. 1

 the two days of the strike. Carrier's statement is also unrefuted that eleven regular switch assignments and two local freight assignments were annulled at Canton on each of these days as a consequence of the strike and 485 freight cars were immobilized in the Canton yard as a further result of the strike.
to Carrier's Alliance yard facilities, about 17 miles from Canton,
 causing deprivations of manpower there to the extent of about 100
 emplolees on Sentember 29, 1978. Four of the Local 350 Canton
 strikers also appeared at Carrier's Salinesvilie area about 2&
 stiles- from Canton where two-surfacing gangs were IIaorking. Testi
 mony :;, in dispute concerning whether said employees addressed,
 themselves to attempting to persuade the construction crew super
 visors and the. gang members to join the others in going. on strike
 and succeeded is causing the work of one of tae gangs to be stopped
 for a day (as contended by Carrier), or carried out a -mission or'
 warning supervisors and employees that others might attempt to
 make them join the strike, cautioned them against doing so, and no
 stoppage took place among these employees (contended by Employes).

 5. It is undisputed that the subject B.M.W.E. emplcyees were, at the time of this two-day stoppage, under existing and. continuing Agreement with Carrier and that said strike was both illegal and unauthorized. By two telegrams dated September 29, 1978, B.M.W.E.

 'Claimant Wiles was not among them.
 .FLB 2420 -4- AWARD No: 1
General Chairman, W. £. LaRtue, notified Carrier°s Senior Director - Labor Relations, J. R. Walsh* that. the organization had not authorized the work stoppage then in progress. The record shrews that strikers and picketers were at various times and in various groups informed over these two days that their Organization had not sanctioned or authorized their activities, but without avail. On the second day of the strike, upon complaint and motion of Carrier, a temporary- restraining order was issued to the local Organization by the U.S.,District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to cease and desist from strike activities and served on the offices of the organization at 7aZ5. PM, as well as.on various strikers'at picket vositions.

 6. Although the- evidence does reveal effective and. widespread abstention from work by B.M.W.Z.. employees on those two days, and a good many other employees, as well, not belonging to that Organization, it does not, to any definitive degree of specificity, reveal how many actually appeared in picketer congregations and activities at the Canton entrances and roadways as well as at other Carrier facilities.

 76 Disciplinazy charges were leveled at 45 Maintenance of Way employees by Carrier for their part. in the strike and strike activities on September 28 and 2y-, 1978 and in the course of trial and appeal procedures, the parties arrived at mutually acceptable








- be heard in a single°trial, objected to by Organization as a viola
 tion of Rule-5-C-1 because reference therein is to notice of and
 action on "charge"' in the singular, was not a violation of said Rule.,
 The use of the singular ir. respect to each charge doses not exclude the
 right to have the-Claimant tried at one time on a series of single
 charges,, particularly when, as here, all the accusations arise out of
 and refer to closely, related actions involving a single gancral event
 and lend themselves to being heard together, indeed make it prefer
 able to,do so, from the viewpoint of affording fullest opportunity
 of expeditious investigation and due process.
F~
 i
 ?LB 2420 -6- AWARD NO. I















i








PL~ 2420 -S- AWARD NO. I

 e. Claimant testified that he arrived at the Canton Shop entrance shortly before starting time on the 28th,. but did not work "because there was a picket line." He admitted staying in that congregation, adding to the mass thereof and, thus, augmenting and implementing its character as a picket group equipped with picket signs and having as its purpose the desisting from work and the encouraging or persuading of other employees scheduled to work, not to do so.

 in our view, carrier was justified in concluding that by so doing, Clainant was a'picketer °abetting" other picketers, as charged. The participation of Claimant in such activities is factually reinforced.by an undisputed showing at the hearing that, aside from his being part cf the picketers at starting time, Claimant was part of picketing groups. at other entrances of the facility in addition to the one customarily used by himR at 11:20 PM on September 28th (a time during his usual working hours), as well as the next day (the 29th) at 2:flQ AM (a time not usually worked by him). According to testimony of Assistant Equipment Engineer R. E. Gray, when he encountered Claimant at the latter time standing with another at a small fire behind a strike sign on the Service Packaging entrance to the plant, Claimant responded to inquiry that "he was picketing" because "they told me to."
 ` . pL8 2420 -9- AWARD NO. 1

 it should be said here, because the question has been touched on by Organization in this and companion cases, that picketing.postures are conformed to, not only by means of the familiar parading of the strikers around plant entrances, but also by notice to others of a strike going on in the-presence of a strike sign and strikers, whether the latter merely stand (or even sit) there, whether two, four or 150 such individuals station themselves there as strikers and demonstrators of the strike fact and strike purposes

 f. The fact that Claimant reported off duty on September 28th, and.cailed in again as sick at 2:42 PM (before starting time) on September 29th does not exonerate him .`tom the fact that he was a participant in an iIlegai and unauthorized strike activity against Carrier on those days.

 g. Carrier's further charges that Claimant acted in an insubordinate fasaion.by refusing an order from a management Official to return. to duty were convincingly established in the. evidence by the uncontroverted testimony of Shop Engineer R. Campitella that, pursuant to management instructions to him, he directed a group of employees congregated at the Division Road main entrance to the facility,. among whom he identified Claimants "Your jobs are open, the-doors are open; you should report to work. If you du not report, disciplinary action will be to%en." This order was given at 3s45 FM
 r
 Y PLB 2420 -I O- AWARD NO.. 1







            Claim denied.


    Q~, 71 LOUIS YAGOf*, CSAIRt1N a NEUTRAL


      FRED WURPEL, J?-., .,ah ATION MEMBER

                    . s

              41

      71 Wt

      N.M. BERNER; ARRIER M FD~B.'-.it DATED ·da.


. - J