SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 166
BROTHERHOOD OF RAIWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
versus
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
STATDIMIT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
and Station Employes on the Missouri Pacific Railroad, that the Carrier violated the Clerksq Agreement:
1. When, on January 2$;
1955,
following formal investigation held
on January
27, 1955,
the Division Superintendent, St. Louis
Terminal Division, unjustly discharged from the service of the
Company Clerk B. M. Thompson, occupant of position of Junction
Clerk, rate
$14:96
per day, Dupo, Illinois Terminal seniority
date, Class
%tVT,
February 21,
1942,
Class
21AH,
April 7,
1942,
and refused and continued to refuse to return Clerk Thompson
to service with seniority rights unimpaired and with pay for
all wage loss suffered;
2. The Carrier shall be directed to reinstate Clerk Thompson with
seniority rights unimpaired and compensate him, for all wage loss
suffered,from the date he was removed from his position, January
28s 1955,
at the close of duty, 3 PM, until the date he is returned to work, account Carrier's action in violation of the
Clerkst Agreement, Rule
18
(a) and (k).
FINDINGS: Claimant was dismissed January
28, 1955,
after investigation, for
alleged insubordination. The evidence does not show any direct
refusal to perform a task directed by a Supervisor; it does show that when a
Supervisor told him another clerk wanted to give him the carding on a train,
the claimant said he would not take the carding from him as he was giving two
or three numbers at a time and he couldnvt remember them to make the cards.
He was not then sent home or otherwise directed to perform the work, nor
was any attempt made to straighten out the difficulty he was complaining
about.
It appears that claimant had been in service about 13 years with
no prior discipline. Under such circumstances, it appears that discharge
was wholly improper.
It is true, of course, that if claimant had some complaint about
the way other clerks were calling numbers to him, he should have registered
it in a reasonable manner with his Supervisor so that it could be straightened
out rather than to adopt the attitude and make the statement that he wouldn2t
take them from that clerk. Obviously then, claimant was guilty of misconduct,
justifying some discipline.
Award 110 - 7
Docket No. 7
After consideration of the whole matter, it is deemed appropriate
to order the reinstatement of claimant without pay for a period of one year,
which should be considered as a disciplinary suspension, and thereafter that
he be compensated for wage loss less earnings in other employment.
AIMD: Claimant shall be reinstated to his former employment status
without compensation for a period of one year from the date of
his dismissal and with compensation for wage loss thereafter less earnings
in other employment during the same period.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTPENT N0, 166
/s/ Dudley E< Zlhit
Dudley E. Whting - Chairman
/s/ Ira F. Thomas /s/ G. W. Johnson
I. F. Thomas - Employe Member G. W. Johnson - Carrier Member
St. Louis, Missouri
January 16, 1957