I
i 4
m
i
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 280
Award No. 140
Case No. 219
PARTIES St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
TO and
DISPUTE Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

STATEMENT "1. Carrier violated the Maintenance of Way Agreement especially but not

OF CLAIM limited to Rule 6-Discipline and Grievances, when Carrier failed to

prove charges against the accused. No charges are specified at hear-

. ing as to cause of dismissal.

2. Laborer Carl J. Linell be allowed payment for all time lost due to an improper dismissal on February 24, 1976, and with vacation, seniority rights and all~otherrights unimpaired until the date that he is reinstated."

FINDINGS

Upon the whole record, after hearing,. the Board finds that the parties.herein are CarriE and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

Claimant was dismissed from service on February 24, 1976 for insubordination in that it was alleged that he had refused to follow instructions from his foreman to take his tool with him and go to the specific work location. Following the investigative hearing he1, on March 10, 1976, Carrier sustained its previous discharge.

Petitioner makes three arguments in this dispute: 1. It is urged that the transcript of the investigation is not dated and refers to the caption of the investigation; there is no caption and no record of charges according to the Organization; 2. Neither Claimant nor his representatives were given an opportunity to present any witnesses; 3. Carrier did not prove-its charges.

An examination of the record of this dispute indicates that the caption of the investio. tion contained a complete charge and was clearly dated. Further, the transcript of the investigation does not indicate any prejudice whatever or other actions by the hearing

Award No. 140 -2

'. $(5A 2$O

,officer denying Claimant or his representatives the right to present their defense.
Hence, the procedural contentions of the Organization must be denied since they are not
supported by the record . With respect to the merits of the dispute, it is quite evi
dent that Claimant, on the day in question, did indeed refuse to carry out the instruc
tions of his foreman. His noncompliance with the proper order from his supervisor was
not a misunderstanding as alleged by Petitioner but clearly a matter of willful disobe
dience. In short, his actions constituted good cause for discipline. It is well est9b
lished that insubordination is a dismissal offense. While the Board recognizes that
there are varying degress of insubordination, the refusal to obey a direct order from
a supervisor is clearly beyond the pale of acceptable conduct. Furthermore, it is quite
well known that Boards= such as this may not substitute their judgments for that of
Carrier unless Carrier's actions with respect to the discipline imposed have been unrea
sonable, capricious or arbitrary.. In this instance, we do not find that Carrier's-measur
of discipline was inappropriate to the offense. Hence, the claim must be. denied.
AWARD .

CLAIM DENIED.

I.M. h eberman, Neutral-Chairman

Carrier Member Employee Member

October q , 1979
Houston, Texas