PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2529
Joseph Lazar, Referee
AWARD NO. 18
CASE NO. 25
PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
TO ) and
DISPUTE ) FORT WORTH AND DENVER RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT 1. That the Carrier violated the Rules Agree
OF CLAIM: ment when on June 14, 1982 they dismissed
Trackman S. W. O'Neal, said dismissal being
capricious, arbitrary and unjust.
2. That Claimant S. W. O'Neal be restored to
the service of the Carrier with seniority,
vacation and all other rights unimpaired
and, additionally, be compensated for loss
of earnings suffered account his wrongful
discharge.
FINDINGS:
By reason of the Memorandum of Agreement signed
November 16, 1979, and upon the whole record and
all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are employe
and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,
and that it has jurisdiction.
In notice dated June 14, 1982, Claimant Trackman S. W.
O'Neal was dismissed from the services of the Fort Worth and Denver
Railway Company "in violation of Rules 563, 564 and 576, of the
Burlington Northern Safety Rules, for insubordination. to Assistant
Section Foreman, J. E. Persons, on May 19, 1982, as evidenced by
formal investigation" on May 28, 1982 at Fort Worth, Texas.
PLB - 2529
AWARD NO. 1$ (page 2)
CASE NO. 25
General. Rules 563, 564,-and 576 read:
"563. Burlington Northern service demands the faith
ful, intelligent, courteous and safe discharge of duty.
Courteous, orderly conduct is required of all employees.
Boisterous, profane, sexist or vulgar language
is-
for
bidden. Employees must not enter into altercation with
any person, regardless of provocation, but will make note
of the facts and report such incident in writing to their
imPdiate supervisor.
"564. Employees will not be retained in the service who
are careless of the safety of themselves or others, dis
loyal, insubordinate, dishonest, immoral, quarrelsome, or
otherwise vicious, or who conduct themselves in such a
manner that the railroad will be subjected to criticism
and loss of good will."
"576. Employees must comply with instructions from proper
authority."
Claimant O'Neal admits that he told his Supervisor,
Assistant Foreman Persons, "to get f-----" after being instructed
to load tools on the truck on May 19, 1982, at about 8:30 AM. Mr.
Persons testified: "O'Neal told me to get f-----. I told O'Neal
I did not have time for his foolishness, that I would have to talk
to someone about his language. That was it." Persons testified,
in response to the question, "He did put the tools on the truck as
you originally instructed?", "Yes." (Tr. p. 4).
The evidence of record is
insufficient to
establish any
refusal by Claimant O'Neal to follow instructions.
The National Railroad Adjustment Board, Third Division,
has upheld the right of a Carrier to dismiss an employe for the
use of vulgar and profane language abusive to the employee's supervisor. See Awards 16948, 17692, 19698, 19760. Whether language is
to be deemed vulgar, profane, or disrespectful or abusive to the
employee's supervisor, however, must be determined in the light of
the standard of language commonly used in the
environment involved.
"Language considered acceptable in a freight yard office may be unacceptable in another setting, for instance, a girl's school theology
class." (Award No. 18439, Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment
Board).
PLB - 2529
AWARD NO. 18 (page 3)
CASE NO. 25
In the instant dispute, there is no question from the
evidence of record, replete with undenied testimony, that the
language of "f--k" is commonly and frequently used on Gang 121,
Fort Worth, and is used by rank and file as well as by supervisors.
Common use, however, as part of the colorful lexicon of maintenance
of way gang language, does not necessarily remove such language from
the category of being vulgar, profane, abusive or disrespectful to
one's supervisor. Words have different meanings, depending on how
the words are spoken as well as the setting., including to- whom t'ne
words are spoken. As stated by one employee at the investigation,
"He said that Big Un says it all the time. But Big Un don't say it
to the Foremen. We all go out there and cut up, but we don't do it
to the Foremen." Mr. p. 18).
The Carrier declares that "Such language may be accepted
in a labor gang among the men but its use toward a supervisor is
insubordinate and disruptive, and its'use in the presence of other
employes makes it all the more likely that proper respect for foremen
would be in peril." Further, the Carrier has stated: "General
disorder would be the result if such behavior prevailed on this railroad. Such is not the case on this property. Insubordinate conduct
will not be condoned." (Carrier's Exhibit No. 2(b).
The transcript of investigation clarifies the sense in
which Claimant O'Neal used the language:
"Q. Mr. O'Neal, why did you tell Mr. Persons to get
f----- after being instructed to perform duties?
A. Well, it was said in a jokingly manner because I
had been previously working with Mr. Persons, just
the two of us, the following couple of days, and about
all we did is ride around and B.S. together while we
are working." (Tr., p. 23).
Claimant, apparently, was using the language of the gang, failing to
r ealize that Mr. Persons was his Supervisor and not his fellow member
of the gang. This was poor judgment and is not to be condoned, but
the Board cannot find justification for discharge in the circumstances
presented.
PLB - 2529
AWARD NO. 18 (page 4?
CASE NO. 25
1. The Carrier is in violation of the Agreement.
2. The Carrier shall reinstate Claimant S. W. O'Neal
but without pay for time lost.
JOSEPH LAZAR, CHAIRMAN AND NEUTRAL MEMBER
S. E. FLEMING, EMPLOY
T
&MMz=
B. J. MASON, CARRIER MEMBER