f r
1
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 279
Award No. 500
Case No. 500
File 900558
Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Employes
to and
Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company
(Former Missouri Pacific Railroad)
Statement
of Claim: (1) Carrier violated the Agreement, especially Rule 12, when
Trackman A. E. Lohff was dismissed from service on May 16,
1990.
(2) Claim in behalf of Mr. Lohff for wage loss suffered
beginning May 16, 1990 until reinstated with seniority,
vacation, and all other rights unimpaired.
Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of the
parties Agreement establishing this Board therefor.
The Claimant, A. E. Lohff, a Trackman on Gang 9162,
under date of May 18, 1990, was sent the following formal
notice of investigation:
"At approximately 10:00 AM on May 15, 1990 in the
vicinity of Gore, Oklahoma, while working as a Trackman
on Gang 9162, you were allegedly insubordinate towards
Track Supervisor D. E. Ware when you failed to follow
instructions in the operation
of
TBSR 8901; also, at
approximately 7:15 a.m. on May 16, 1990, in the
vicinity
of
Gore, Oklahoma you allegedly were
insubordinate towards Supervisor D. E. Ware by making
threatening remarks towards him and his personal
property..."
As a result of the investigation held on June 7, 1990,
Carrier, under date
of
June 15, 1990, advised the Claimant
that it had concluded him as being culpable of all charges
brought against him. The Claimant was dismissed from
service as discipline therefor.
He was disciplined for the insubordination on May 15
because
of
a failure to follow instructions and (2) for
insubordination when he made threatening remarks towards his
supervisor and his personal property.
There is no procedural
violation. Claimant was
accorded the due process to which entitled under Rule 12.
f
-2- Award No. 500
There was sufficient evidence adduced, including the
admissions of Claimant, to support Carrier's conclusion of
culpability. He was operating the tie bed scarifeier (TBSR8901) on May 15. There was not any question but that he
pulled up close to another machine. Claimant admitted, at
T-32 among others, that he had been previously instructed
not to get close to the machine in front particularly since
there was a recent collision between two machines. He also
admitted that he had been told on several occasions not to
do so, T-31, T-32, T-33.
The conversation on May 16 was confined to the Claimant
and Track Supervisor Dave Ware in the Supervisor's Suburban
vehicle. However, the derogatory effects and impact were
heard by witnesses as to the profane language and the
slamming of the door. The Claimant asserted that he was
provoked into the situation by Supervisor Ware's arbitrary
position of removing him and keeping him from ever being a
Machine Operator.
Carrier chose to believe the version of its Supervisor,
and witness, David Ware. Ware's version was somewhat
corroborated by two other employees and supervisors.
The Board will not interfere with the Carrier's
conclusions because the record supports. Carrier was not
shown to be arbitrary nor capricious in reaching that
conclusion.
While it is true that Claimant may have been angry,
nevertheless he still had countervailing means of possible
correction. The Claimant's recourse, if he felt he was
"being jobbed" by the particular supervisor he could and
should have filed a grievance with his Union and had it
progressed. There is no question but Claimant was also
insubordinate by failing to comply with instructions given
to him not only by Supervisor Ware but by others including
Track Foreman Wayne Henry. The Claimant was also
insubordinate to his supervisor by contumacious actions and
intention to take action against Supervisor Ware.
The Board will not intervene when there was no basis
therefor properly established in the record. Consequently,
this claim will be denied.
Awa laim denied.
t,
S. A. Hammons, Jr. Emp oym~0 Rng, rie Member
,i4,h~ur T~. Van Wart, Chairman
and Neutral Member
Issued November 30, 1991.