PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2960
AWARD N0. 50
CASE N0. 38
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
and
Chicago & North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The sixty (60) day suspension assessed Trackman
Eddie Randolph, Jr., for alleged insubordination was
without just and sufficient cause, unwarranted and
excessive. (Organization's File 2D-1916; Carrier's
File D-11-24-73.)
(2) Trackman Eddie Randolph, Jr., shall have his
record cleared of the charge and compensated for all
wage loss suffered.
OPINION OF THE BOARD:
This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds
and holds that the employees and the Carrier involved in this dispute
are respectively employees and Carrier within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as amended and that the Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein.
On May 27, 1981, the Carrier directed the Claimant to attend
an investigation. The letter read in pertinent part as follows:
You are directed to appear for formal investigation as
indicated below:
~)ba-~UU
2
Place: Roadmaster's Office, 9th & Douglas, St. Joseph, M9 64505
Time: Monday, 10:00 a.m._
Date: June 1, 1981
Charge: Your responsibility for failure to follow foreman's
instructions on May 27, 1981, near Savannah, MO.
It should be noted that the Claimant had been removed from service at
4:00 p.m. on May 27, 1981, pending an investigation into the alleged
incident.
The investigation was held as scheduled and subsequent to the
investigation the Claimant was assessed a 60-day suspension for his
failure to "follow foreman's instructions on May 27, 1981, near
Savannah, Missouri."
A review of the record convinces the Board that there is substantial evidence to support the charge. The Foreman testified that he
instructed the Claimant to remove himself from the machine which he was
operating and help the plating crew. The Foreman further testified the
Claimant walked away without complying with these instructions. As the
Claimant walked away, the Foreman indicated that he instructed the
Claimant to return to the machine to discuss with the mechanic the
trouble that he was experiencing with the machine. The Foreman then
indicated that the Claimant turned around, faced him momentarily and
continued walking away. The Foreman further testified that he was sure
the Claimant heard his orders. This, and other essential parts of his
testimony, were corroborated by the testimony of the mechanic.
In regard to the appropriateness of a 60-day suspension, the
Organization argues it is excessive because of the nature of the
circumstances and the fact this was the Claimant's first offense. The
Board agrees.
While insubordination shouldn't be taken lightly, there are
--14l00 `SD
3
degrees of insubordination. Under the circumstances, this incident was
not serious enough to justify a 60-day suspension, especially when
there was no history or prior record of similar or related disciplinary
incidents. In addition, there was no evidence the Claimant was
abusive, boisterous, argumentative or profane in his conduct. While
this mitigates the seriousness of the instant offense, even minor
insubordination is deserving of significant discipline. In view of the
foregoing, the discipline will be reduced. It is our opinion a 30-day
suspension is the maximum discipline appropriate under the individual
facts and circumstances of this case without such discipline being
considered arbitrary or capricious.
In view of the foregoing, the discipline is reduced to a 30-day
suspension and the Carrier is directed to compensate the Claimant for
all time lost beyond the 30-day suspension within 30 days of the date
of this Award.
AWARD
Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion.
-~ n, airman
~~ a
H. b.
Harper, p o e Member raw or Carrier em er
Date:
T~
0'Q-