r
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 279
Award No. 597
Docket No. 597
U.P. File No. 920490
Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
to and
Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company
(Former Missouri Pacific)
Statement
of Claim: (1) Carrier violated the Agreement, especially Rule 12,
when P. R. Munger (SSN 462-13-7778) was assessed 30 days
actual suspension on August 31, 1992.
(2) Claim in behalf of Mr. Munger for wage loss suffered
while serving the actual suspension and removal of said
discipline from his record.
Findings: The Board has jurisdiction by reason of the parties
Agreement establishing this Board therefor.
The Claimant, a Welder, was notified under date of July
29, 1992 to attend a formal investigation:
" ..your alleged failure to comply with instructions from
M.T.M. T. J. Menchaca, starting June 3, 1992, through
present date and in violation of Rule 2, of the Maintenance
of Way Rules while you were working as a welder at Lloyd
Yard, Spring, Texas."
As a result thereof, Carrier concluded the Claimant to
be culpable and assessed a discipline of 30 days actual
suspension as discipline therefor.
Rule 2 - Standard Time, reads:
"Time of service requirements: while on duty, employees who
are examined on these rules, must have and use a reliable
watch capable of indicating time and hours, minutes and
seconds, continuously on the same display. Hours must be
indicated in their Arabic numerals.
Continental time is authorized system wide."
The Claimant was accorded the due process to which
entitled under Rule 12 - Discipline.
There was sufficient evidence adduced at the
investigation' to support Carrier's conclusion of the
t
-2- Award No. 597
Claimant's culpability. The record reflects that MTM
Menchaca talked with the Claimant on June 3, 1992 for not
having a proper watch. The Claimant indicated that he would
purchase one by the end of the week. The MTM again talked
with the Claimant on June 22 and July 15 as to not having a
proper watch. The MTM even offered to loan the Claimant the
money to buy a watch. On July 28th MTO Burns performed a
safety audit on Claimant and Mr. Peel. Burns discovered
that the Claimant still did not have a proper watch.
Claimant admitted during the investigation that he had
not complied with the instructions. Such admission, of
course, in reality ends the need for further discourse on
the subject matter. As pointed out in Second Division Award
No. 8576 (Roukis):
"There were no mitigating circumstances such as safety
considerations that would warrant non compliance and his
willful failure to conform to this .expected employment
requirement was at peril. It ill serves the railroad
industry which is vested with a vital public
interresponsibility if employees are permitted the right of
self help. A discipline and responsive chain of command is
a necessary pre-condition of safe and efficient rail
operations. It would be an anarchic state of affairs -
In Second Division Award 5360, this Board held in pertinent
part: the undisputed evidence shows that Claimant opening
refused to commence a task when instructed to do so by his
immediate supervisor and used abusive and vulgar language
when confronted with this failure by his superior.
Insubordination is a serious offense which has been held to
justify dismissals under circumstances more favorable to the
employee than those of this case."
The discipline imposed is deemed reasonable for the
Claimant's continued failure to have an approved time piece
and the need therefor requires no further discourse. This
claim will be denied.
Award: Claim denied.
S. A. Hammons, Jr., Employee Member K thy lexa der, Carrier Member
S
Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman
and Neutral Member
Issued November 27, 1993.