Such an understanding is clearly placed within the heading of the vacation list. it reads:
Claimant, having minimum seniority, know he wanted May 21 8< 22, 1998, as two of his five floaters, but he did not know until May 14, 1998, whom his Supervisor would be. As soon as Claimant became aware of where he would be working, he advised the Roadmaster of his Intent to be on vacation these two days, His e-mail to the Roadmaster reads as follows:
From the aforequoted e-mail exchange, it is clear to this Board that Claimant did not seek the approval of the Roadmaster to be off May 21, 22, but rather, he was advising the Roadmaster "that on May 21 @ 22 19981 plan to be on vacation."
Claimant has ignored the last sentence of the Roadmaster's response to his e-mail advice of being off May 21, 22, 1998, as vacation days and in lieu zeroed in on the first portion which read, "if it is scheduled, then take it."
Claimant then called manpower planning for the Arizona Division inquiring If the two days had been scheduled, and he was advised that manpower does not schedule floating vacation days.
The Roadmaster, aware of Claimant's displacement and also aware of service requirement's for the week of May 18-22, 1998, held the Foreman displaced by Claimant at Yucca to assist in the work that had to be done.
Pace 3 Award No.Claimant then secured a printout of the work force at Yucca, and found that the Junior Foreman was listed as a Relief Foreman with the relief computer code of 08.
Once Claimant had a printout listing the Foreman he displaced as a Relief Foreman, he then argued at the Investigation that he had the Roadmaster's permission for the floating vacation days.
This Board rejects this argument. It is clear that floating vacation days are not scheduled In advance as are 3 to 23 days vacation, and floating vacation days can be taken only with the permission of the Supervisor,
Claimant was off on his two day vacation without the permission of his Supervisor, it appears from the transcript that if Claimant simply had approached the Roadmaster, he just may have had permission to be off, but hg did not ask.
Claimant was paid for the 21st and 22nd as he enters his own time In the computer. The only correction made an the payroll for Claimant was to change the code reflecting floating vacation days as opposed to scheduled vacation days.
Claimant returned to work on May 26, and did have a rather emotional or heated discussion with the Roadmaster about his taking off without permission, but in Claimant's mind, at the conclusion of the talk, he believed the vacation Issue was settled.
On May 27 at about noon, the Roadmaster passed Claimant leaving the work area for lunch and motioned him to return to the work area. Claimant left his truck without wearing his hard hat even though it was a required modo of dress in the work area.
The Roadmaster was disappointed with Claimant's work performance on May 28, and so advised Claimant, ending the discussion by suspending Claimant from service and requested Claimant at that point to turn in all the company property in his possession. Claimant refused to turn in the company equipment.
'et-0 NJ · 50SDThis, the Board admits, was an unusual request, but nevertheless, It was a request from his supervisor and as long as such an order did not in any way jeopardize the safety and "[fare of Claimant or others, Claimant's only choice was to comply and if he believed it to be an unjust or improper order, to protest later, In other words, the well-established axiom of "obey now, grieve later" is the course Claimant should have followed.
In view of the transcript, the Carrier has furnished sufficient evidence of Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed. The only matter to be determined is the discipline. Claimant hired out April 22, 1996. Prom October 20, 1997, until March 19, 1998, he was suspended without pay for dishonesty and, in this Instance, he was suspended from service at noon on May 27, 199&, with the suspension being converted to a dismissal following the Investigation. Two very serious charges from a relative new-comer. Under these circumstances, the discipline will be upheld.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute Identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.