- I Case Number: 117
 I'

 PARTIES TO.DISPUTFt ;., ,,. , , ,. . .j
I I I
 1 1 II , 1 .,. , 1 . `~ , , y` " li. Y ' I,~, ,I 'i





STATEMENT OF GLAIM , , , 1' ' , I 1_ .

    Claimant, C.M. Lowe, 512 McDowell Avenue,,N.W. Roanoke, VA 24017, was

    assessed a 10 day, suspension on October 5, 19,8,7 for alleged conduct -

    unbecoming an employe. Claim was filed, by the Employes 'in accordance-,- .

    with Railway Labor Act and'agreement provisions. Employes request the

    suspension be removed from his record and paid for'tie f0 days with 1,, I


    vacation and seniority rights"unimpaired.


                                                        1


FINDINGS r'

    Claimant entered the Carrier's service on August 26, 1981.


                                          I r It.nBy letter dated August 13, 1987, Claimant was,no.tified to, attend, Id


formal investigation on ,charges that he engaged in conduct unbecoming an I,

 employee. The investigation was held on September 18, 1987, after having

 been postponed once. By letter dated September 25, 1987, Claimant was 1'

 assessed 10 days actual suspension based on evidence adduced at the .

                                                            investigation. i


                                                          I, ,

The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant was - -
 suspended for just cause under the Agreement; and if not, what should the _ .

 remedy be. -'
 On August.10, 1987,-- Claimant" was assigned as.a.Spiker Operator.'

 Assistant Rail Gang Supervisor D. S. Kirk was serving as his immediate

 supervisor. During 'the morning operations, Kirk noticed that the jaws of
 Claimant's spiker were worn and not functioning properly. After lunch, Kirk
 asked Claimant what he had been doing that morning as a means to determine
 why Claimant had not changed the jaws that'morning. At the formal inves
 tigation, Kirk testified that Claimant responded with a string of profanity
 directed at first at the spiker machine, not at Kirk., However, when Kirk
 told Claimant to calm down, that he was simply inquiring to determine what ;
 corrective measures to take, Claimant began-to use'profanity directed at
 Kirk. Claimant further asserted that Kirk was picking on him and that
 Claimant would take orders from Supei-visor'D. R. Litton.

 Claimant testified that he used profanity in his conversation with Kirk, but never directed it at Kirk. He further testified that Kirk used

 profanity toward him., - -

 35-36 -1/71zJ2'

 Claimant,,.w'as ,ll~ld lout of service, pending the formal i.nvestigatioi

 'The position of the Carrier is that Claimant was suspended for just '

 cause under the Agreement. The -Carrier contends that Claimant used profanity toward Kiik and that profanity toward a supervisor constitutes conduct unbecoming an employee. The Carrier cites,various awards which hold that the industrial workplace is not a democracy and that'.empIoyees are to follow orders when given and only later either question or grieve any

 dispute as to those orders. Based,on these authorities, the Carrier maintains that the suspension is fully warranted, noting that,-a brief
 suspension is lenient since unbecoming conduct is a serious offense, punishable by disrhissal.As to holding Claimant out of service, the Carrier reiterates its position that unbecoming conduct is a serious offense and argues that based on that, holding Claimant out of service complies with the

 purrent Agreement. -

 'n

73,


The position of the Organization is that Claimant was suspended without just cause. The Organization contends that Claimant's profanity was directed against the spiker machine while Kirk used, profanity against Claimant. The Organization maintains that Kirk has an "attitude problem" which is manifested,by his unjustifiably asserting his dominance over subordinate employe6s: It 4rgues.that if Kirk had truly wanted to prove Claimant's wrongdoing, he would have brought a third person to his meeting

 with Claimant.

          The Organization also challenges the Carrier's decision to hold n


Claimant out of pervice.

 The Organization contends that it was unjustified ,

 b,ACause,it6'eCar~iei,!s own aCtiqn of reinstating;~CTaimant,.after seven days-"6 shows ·that the Carrier did not-deem Claimant's alleged offense to be very serious. .In addition, the Organination,maintains,that the' suspension is'too

 harsh 'a disciplihe.'

 After review of the entire record, the Board finds that Claimant's
 suspensioy was for just cause cinder the Agreement..- ' '-

 The Carrier has sustained its burden of proving' that,the record contains substantive credible evidence that Claimantlbehaved in a inanne~
 AWARD
Claim denied.

 Date; Zg,a. ZZ~

 353o --1i-7
 /~'~c

 unbecoming an employee., The record provides adequate basis for the .finding V that Claimant used'profanity against Kirk as well as the spiker machine and

 that Clsimaftt,challgnged Kirk's authority. It is well settled that 'there is
 a~Glear hietarchy,` d,f~authorit~.~iA the industrial workplace.., Superiors are
 entitled to a certain level of,respect, so·long Is'lthey'Coaduct themselves'·:"i,,
 properly; this provides for thp safe and efficient operation of the

 Carrier's ,operation.' Claimant''s actions 'were sufficiently severe to justify
 holding him out of service and the subsequent suspension. The Carrier's actions were neithet,a'rbitrary, carpricious non discriminatory.,

 Neutra~t ember

 Carrier Membe

 _J~,t~

 Organization Member