STATEMENT OF CLAIM
“Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
The Carrier’s discipline [twenty-four (24) day actual suspension] of Mr. R. Hawkins, III, issued by letter dated October 23, 2023, in connection with the following:
‘1. Conduct unbecoming an Employee in that despite being instructed by Supervision on September 18, 2023, you failed to perform the work that was assigned to you and instead performed work without the direction or approval of Supervision.
Conduct unbecoming an Employee in that on or about September 20 and 21, 2023, you were insubordinate to Supervision upon being instructed to perform work as a Foreman and refused to comply.’ (Employes’ Exhibit ‘A-1’)
was arbitrary, capricious, unjust, unwarranted, unreasonable, harsh, and excessive.
As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimant R. Hawkins, III, shall now ‘… be made whole for all financial losses, including compensation for:
Straight time for each regular workday lost and holiday pay for each holiday lost, to be paid at the rate of the position assigned to the Claimant at the time of removal from service (this amount is not reduced by earnings from alternate employment obtained by the Claimant while wrongfully removed from service).
Overtime pay for lost overtime opportunities based on overtime for any position the Claimant could have held during the time the Claimant was removed from service or on overtime paid to any junior employee for work the Claimant could have bid on and performed had the Claimant not been removed from service.
All notations of the dismissal (sic) should be removed from all Carrier records.’ (Employes’ Exhibit ‘A-2’)” [File: Hawkins-R-10-23-INV/MW-BR-23-46-LM-687 SOU; NMB Code: 101]
FINDINGS AND OPINION
This Board, having jurisdiction over the dispute at issue, finds the parties herein to be employee and carrier, respectively, within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. The parties were given due notice of the hearing held.
At the time of the incident giving rise to this dispute, Claimant Raymond Hawkins, a Carrier employee for over 23 years, was assigned as a rotary dump truck operator based at Linwood Yard, North Carolina. Following a formal Investigation on October 12, 2023, and by way of Carrier correspondence dated October 23, 2023, the Claimant was notified of the Carrier’s conclusion that the facts presented at the Hearing established his responsibility for the misconduct outlined in Items 1.1 and 1.2 of the above-captioned claim statement. As a result of that finding, the Claimant was assessed a time-served actual suspension (24 days). The Organization appealed the Carrier's disciplinary action, up to and including discussion of the matter in an on-property conference. Unable to resolve the dispute, it is now properly before this Board for final and binding adjudication.
According to the record, following the 7:00 am Safety Meeting on Monday, September 18, 2023, Supervisor Mitchell issued the daily lineup, instructing all employees in attendance, including the Claimant, to move directly to the cage pull-out area to prepare for the day’s work of changing headblocks in classification tracks 17-21 at Linwood Yard. Instead of reporting to the cage pull-out area as instructed and without the knowledge or consent of his supervisors, the Claimant took his company dump truck to an outside vendor for preventive maintenance.
The Carrier contends that the Claimant failed to perform the work assigned to him and instead performed other tasks without direction or approval from his supervisor, conduct unbecoming of a Norfolk Southern employee.
Following the morning Safety Meeting on Wednesday, September 20, 2023, Mr. Mitchell issued assignments to the available workforce. He advised the Claimant that, because the gang was short a man, the Claimant was needed to work with the gang that day rather than perform his normal dump truck duties. Mr. Mitchell instructed the Claimant to serve as the TM623's foreman for the day, tasked with remediating defects in Linwood Yard identified during a recent FRA blitz of the territory. Mr. Hawkins repeatedly refused to comply with the instruction, contending that he had a contractual right to decline the assignment if he did not want to work it.
Following the 7:00 am Safety Meeting on Thursday, September 21, 2023, Mr. Mitchell again lined up the available workforce, this time instructing the Claimant to serve as TM623’s foreman for the day, performing gauging work at milepost 299.1 on Main #1. Mr. Hawkins again refused multiple times to comply with the instruction on the same grounds as he had on the day before.
The Board has reviewed the evidence of record and the parties' arguments. We have carefully considered the Organization's procedural objections and found none that compromised or prejudiced the Claimant’s contractual due process rights in any material way. In disciplinary cases such as this, the Carrier bears the burden of proving its case by substantial evidence and, where it meets that burden, of showing that any penalty imposed is not an abuse of its discretion.
The Board finds that the well-settled workplace principle of "comply now, grieve later," one of the most fundamental in labor relations, governed the circumstances at issue. Adherence to this principle prevents workplace disorder, ensuring that work continues while any disputes that might arise are addressed and resolved. Regardless of whether the Claimant considered the supervisor’s instructions to be contrary to the Agreement, he had an obligation to comply with those instructions and, if he believed them to be improper, to subsequently grieve the perceived injustice through the dispute resolution process. Absent a showing that compliance with the instruction posed an imminent danger to his life or limb or would require him to commit an unlawful act, the Claimant cannot exercise self-help by simply refusing to comply. On September 20 and 21, the Claimant was clearly instructed by his supervisor to serve as the gang’s foreman for the day. He clearly refused to comply with those instructions. The Board finds that the substantial evidence establishes that the Claimant was insubordinate and engaged in conduct unbecoming of an employee.
Having established the misconduct, the Board turns to the level of discipline imposed. Insubordination is no minor matter and has long been considered a terminable offense. In this case, the Claimant was assessed a time- served suspension (24 days). In light of the circumstances, we do not find the assessment unreasonable or excessive. Therefore, the Board will not disturb it.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Adam R. Lively | Warren Dent | David M. Pascarella | ||
Carrier Member | Neutral Member | Employee Member |
Dated: 3-10-2026
2