PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:

 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD C011P_-1.\_Y (Western Region)

BROTIitRHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE E\GLN7EERS

 STATEMENT OF CLAE~ I:


OPLVION OF BOARD: In this case, Er.gi leer L. L. Johnson ("Claimant") and the Organization appeal a Level 2 Upgrade disciplina-_: ac:icr, assessed by Superintendent K. H Hunt, following a May 17, 1999 investigation into charges flied on ivlay 11. 1999, by Manager of Operating Practices (TIOP) P. T. Varland that Claimant had violated Rules 1.13 and 1.15 of the General Code of Operating Rules adopted and modined by Union Pacific Railroad, effective April 10, 1994. Superintendent Hunt's May 27,19991 enter assessing the discipline reads, in pertinent part as follows











The Rules which Superintendent Hunt found Claimant guilty of violating read as follows:



                                      NIVIB CASE NO. 133 UNION CASE 99029 COMPANY CASE 1133653


      General Code of Operating Rules. Third Edition effective April 10, 1994, Rule 1.15 - Duty Report or Absence: Employees mug: reportfor duty at the designated time and place with the necessarveqtiipmenttoperonmtlte:rd:tries. Tnevmustspendtheirtimeondurvworkringonlvforthe railroad. Employees must not lea~e rheir assignment, ecchange duties, or allow others to fill their assignmenr ·.vithcut proper authorir;.


Contrary to the conclusion reached by Superintendent Hunt, a careful review of the transcribed record of investigation reveals not a scintilla of evidence that Claimant violated Rule

1.15. The claimed violation of Rule 1.13 is, in essence, a charge of insubordination. It is elemental
 that among the predicates for finding an eMplo, ee guilty of such a violation is clear articulation and
 communication by the super;isor to the etnpioyee of a readily understandable order, instruction,
 a:_ect:_._ _ r _ _ . _ . . . _ e strtglytll, - the
                                                  .:,o

specific instruc;ion issued to the employee in the case decided as Award No. 139 of this Board.

The record in this case shows that a ie.^.er addressed to Claimant by Superintendent Hunt under date of Februar; 26, 1999, purportirg to summarize supervisory instructions issued by 1IOP Varland on February 10. 1999. was never received or read by Claimant. So far as the record shows, the only instruction or performance stardard communicated to Claimant by his supervisor in February 10, 1999 was a vamue admonition to "improve his attendance". As the transcribed testimony amply demonstrates, even the super; isor was unsure about what he actually was telling Claimant to do and what standard Claimant would be required to meet to avoid disciplinary charges. In the facts of this record, we must sustain the claim.


                        AWARD

      1) Claim sustained.


      2) Carrier shall implement this award ·,vithin thirty (30) days of its e:cecutien by a majority of the Board.


                  Dana Edward Eischen, Chairman

                                      Dated at Spencer. New York otrMlarch 9, 2002 j


Uniorv ~ Iem$er' ~ Company Member