_ PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2420


BROTHERHOOOD OF MAINTE:ANC; OF WAY EYPLOYEES -

CONSOLIDA TED RAIL CORPORATION
DOCKET NO, 410

 STAT^ur"T O$ CLAIM:.

 . a The Carrier violated b4e Rules Agreement, effective











OPINION OF BOA-RD:


discharged by Carrier for the following charges:







,i>

 f f























PLB 2420 _3~ AWARD N0. Z

 and 3x45_ PM, Claimant responded, "I was curious to find out about . work."
coming in to work again on September 29, 1978 and joined a group of
 employees who were abstaining from work and.were stationed as pickets on the main road entrance to the Canton Shop or. September 29th at

 about 4:05 PM and 5:15. PM.

 3. Claimant also acknowledged at the hearing that he was one of those gathered at the Canton shop main entrance on September 28th at about 8:30 AM whom F-.. Bucceri, Shop Engineer, .Carrier'.s .w shop., ordered to return to work... According to Bucceri°s testimony-,. supported . by other witnesses, the group was partially blocking the main entrance at the tine, a strike sign was. present among't:iem;'and he recognized Claimant Martin as one of those to whom he gave these instructions. Claimant admits that h.- did not obey these instructions, giving as
 his reason at the hearing, "I wash."t,working,the afternoon shift:, .:

 I didn°t think,it applied to me."' He admits, however, that he
 desisted from work the next day also.

 4. Testimony was given by R. tampitella, Shop Engineer, and supported by others. that, pursuant to management's instructions to him on September 28, 1.978 at approximately 3:45 PM, ::e. went to the
 r

 MH 2420 -4- AWARD rot 2

 main entrance of the road into the,shop, where he saw a group of employees "milling about" near a strike sign placed in a concrete block and that these-individuals. were partially blocking. the road to the plant. In completion of the orders given to him,. Mr. Campitella instructed the group there gathered that,. "this was an unauthorized strike and the dooks were open; their positions were down there; if they did not report to duty, disciplinary action would be taken."- . campitella._s further testimony is that, he recognized Claimant Martin as a member of that group-while Campitella.was reading .said'orders to them.,

 5. Mr.. Campitella further testified (and. Was again supported by, other testimony) that he.again saw Claimant Martin. at 4:05 P:4 and at Sxls FM on September 29th at the main entrance. as part of n group of employees again "milling around" and partially blocking the entrance road and with a strike sign nearby..

 6. Claimant admitted at the hearing that. he was present among the congregation of strikers. and aicketers at about 5:15 FM on the 29th when he received, as did others, an injunction notice from a U.S. Marshall.

 7. D" A. Masucci, Cost Analyst for Carrier at Canton,. testified that at approximately 8:00 PM on September 29, 1978,, h2

i PLB 2420 -5- AWARD NO. 2


    8. In his own testimony, Claimant admitted that at the time he was seated in the truck, there was an,.unauthorized strike going

    on and that he was there to.explain to anybody who asked "that there was a strike in sympathy with N&W" (a reference to the fact that the stoppage was called in.sympathy with, the delay experienced.by another organization in effectuating a contract change with the Norfolk Western Railway), but .that no one would stop them if they wanted to go on the property..


            K'econclude that Claimant was an unlawful striker and

    picketer, in serious violation of his obligations under the law and

    the Agreement of his Organization with Carrier, and by his striking

    and by his presence and participation with the picketers "abetted"..

    the others. as charged by reinforcement and implementation of such

    actirity. _ .


    Carrier is justified in rejecting organization's contention that Claimant was not guilty o= insubordination because the order...-

    Y


i~2 FLB 2420 -6- AWARD NO.. 2

    given him to cease picketing and striking was not a one-to-one order to him only but was addressed to a group of which Claimant was a member.. We regard this as having nevertheless been a direct and unmistakable order from an authoritative source for a valid ..... reason which was disobeyed and supports Carrier's "insubordination" charge.


    In sum,. we find the charges convincingly sustained in such degree and kind as to. justify Carrier°s imposition of~the sub;ect discharge penalty on Claimant..


                            A FF A R D


            Claim denied ..


                                    ...~ _mss, ->i_ :.-s:a : c ' ~ic~L


            i


      .,~i n ~ v_ . 6 i i r

    FRED S~L'RLs JRy's OB~·''~i' ZATION MEMBER


      r.


    -N.M..3cRPa L, yCARHSR MEMBER

    -10 117'7

                                      DATED