Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are carver and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
On Saturday, September 30, 1995, Claimant was working as a Trackman Driver with MW-3 extra gang to finish a road crossing. Claimant's gang consisted of himself, his Foreman and one other.
The second gang also working on the project consisted of four Trackmen without a Foreman. There was also a Senior Foreman who everyone recognized and respected as the Assistant Roadmaster even though that was not his title. In essence, this Senior Foreman was the man in charge.
About 2:00 PM, after all the concrete had been poured and finished, a member of the four man gang approached the acting Assistant Roadmaster requesting permission for soma of the crew to return to home base. The acting Assistant Roadmaster allowed the four man crew to leave.
During the Investigation, it was dearly established that after he had asked his Foreman's permission to leave when the others (who had permission to leave) left, that the Foreman told him he was to stay and work.
Claimant's defense was that when he asked the Foreman's permission, the only part of the response he heard was you volunteered to work, and Claimant stated that he told the Foreman that he was volunteering to leave sady with the others. Even though Claimant may not have understood fully his Foreman's response, ha said he had the permission of the man in charge of the project to leave.
This, however, is contrary to what the Acting Roadmaster, the man in charge, testified to. He denied granting Claimant permission to leave.
This Board, after reviewing the transcript and the on-property correspondence, finds that the Carrier introduced sufficient credible evidence of Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed. Claimant simply walked off the job before the work was done contrary to instructions to stay at work.
Insubordination is a label that is attached to many scenarios, and the discipline assessed in many instances is severe. This Incident is not the blatant in-your-face refusal to do as instructed, but rather an incident of ignoring the instructions and perhaps because he did want to leave early, he heard only what he wanted to hear. Claimant's work record was clear of any other incidents of discipline. He has been away from the Carrier since October 2, 1995. Under the circumstances, he is reinstated to service with all of his seniority rights intact, but without any pay for time lost.