r
BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 1040
Case No. 11
PARTIES: S00 LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
TO
DISPUTE: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Appeal of Claimant Mark A. Pfeiffer!s, Extra Gang
Foreman, ninety working-day suspension and
restriction of his foreman and assistant foreman
seniority on September 4, 1991, for being
argumentative, insubordinate and abusive to Project
Roadmaster Staggs and for refusing to submit to a
drug and alcohol screen on August 29, 1991.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Mark A. Pfeiffer was employed by the Carrier as an
extra gang foreman in Wisconsin.
On September 4, 1991, the Carrier notified the Claimant that
he was being assessed discipline of a ninety working-day
suspension, effective August 30, 1991, as a result of his being
argumentative, insubordinate and abusive to Project Roadmaster
Staggs and his refusal to submit to a drug and alcohol screen on
August 29, 1991. The Carrier further informed the Claimant that
his seniority as foreman and assistant foreman was being
restricted until the Carrier was satisfied with his ability to
function as such and that he was to arrange to protect his
assignment effective January 14, 1992. The Claimant was also
· given the opportunity by the Carrier to return to work after
sixty working days provided he received a favorable
recommendation from the Carrier's employee assistance
coordinator, that return being effective November 25, 1991.
On September 12, 1991, the organization, on the Claimant's
~n`fo- 1
behalf, requested that the carrier agree to the scheduling of
a hearing to determine the facts surrounding the ninety workingday suspension and restriction of his seniority as foreman and
assistant foreman.
The hearing took place October 16, 1991. On October 25,
1991, the Carrier notified the Claimant that his discipline of a
ninety working-day suspension was being upheld, including the
restriction of his seniority as foreman and assistant foreman,
and that the Carrier's actions were warranted and proper.
On October 28, 1991, the. Claimant appealed his suspension
and requested that this matter be brought before this Board.
This Board has reviewed the testimony and evidence in this
case and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record
to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of being
argumentative, insubordinate and abusive to his supervisor. His
insubordinate behavior took place in front of members of his crew
and was totally inappropriate. The Claimant admits grabbing the
supervisor's arm.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support the guilty finding, we next
turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board
will not set aside a carrier's imposition of discipline unless we
find its action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious.
In the case at hand, the Claimant was guilty of a very
serious offense and it was not unreasonable for the Carrier to
suspend him and to restrict his seniority as foreman and
r
2
I04O- ll
assistant foreman. The, Claimant had to be disciplined in order
to make it clear to him that even if he has some disagreement
with the directions he is receiving from upper level management,
he must discuss them in a polite fashion and not bring himself or
other management into disrepute, especially in front of his men.
The Carrier's action in this case was not unreasonable,
arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, the claim will be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
r
1
,rw
'' PETER R. MEYERS
Neutr Member
Carrier Member Organization Member
Dated:
3