SPECIAL HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Award Nom 33
Docket No. 39=.
PARTIES:: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO t
DISPUTE: Chicago and North-Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that::
(1) The dismissal of Machine Operator S. Silquaro for alleged
insubordination on September 20, 1983, was without just
and sufficient cause, arbitrary and capricious. (Organization File 3D-4099; Carrier File 81-84-44-D).
(2) Machine Operator S. Silauero shall be reinstated with
seniority and all other rights unimpaired and compensated
for all wage loss suffered."
FINDINGS:
This Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence,
finds-and holds that the employes and the carrier involved, are
respectively employes and Carrier within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein.
Claimant, prior to his dismissal, was employed by the
Carrier as a machine operator, operating an anchor machine in
the vicinity of Standard City, Illinois, under the supervision
of Anchor Gang Foreman Domingo Contreras. On September--21,
1983, he was notified to attend formal investigation on the
charge:
"To determine your responsibility for-your insubordination when you failed to perform your duty
as directed by your foreman when .you refused to perform any work on September-20, 1983, while working
with the anchor Gang in the vicinity of Standard
City, I11."
A transcript of the formal investigation has been made
a part of the record. In the investigation evidence was presented that claimant refused to opera$e anchor machine when
instructed to do so by his foreman, and refused to apply
anchors with an anchor wrench when instructed by his foreman,
as result of which he was removed from the service. Claimant
admitted that he did not comply with the instructions of the
foreman, but oontended that his reason for such action was
inclement weather conditions- raihing. It was established
.sa4 9~ y
Award No. 33
Docket No. 39
Page, 2
that the remainder of the gang continued working for about one
hour after claimant's refusal. The foreman described the~rain
as light% stated that claimant had a rain coat, and that the
gang-encountered no difficulties in applying anchors.
In Third Division Award No. 22798, it was heldi-
"It is well settled that employees must emmply with
instructions of their superior officers And complain
later-if they consider that they have been mistreated,
except where a real safety hazard may be involved. If'
an employe contends·that a safety hazard is intblved,
then the burden is on the employe to prove that such
situation actually exists."
We find from the record before us in the present
dispute that claimant has failed to prove that a real safety
hazard existed at the time of his refusal to comply with the
instructtons of his foreman. Adverse weather conditions are
nothing more than an occasionally unfortunate condition of
pork, especially in track maintenance. We find that claimant
was guilty of insubordination. Severe discipline was warranted;
however, we consider permanent dismissal excessive; taking into
consideration claimant's satisfactory record during his five
years of service. The time that claimant has been out of
service should constitute sufficient discipline. We will
award that he be restored to service with seniority and otherrights unimpaired; but without any compensation for time lost
while out of the service. Claimant should understhnd that,the
purpose of the award is to give him one last chance to become
a satisfactory and valued employe, and tat further major infractions on his part will receive short shrift.
A W A H D
Claim sustained to the extent indicated in Findings.
ORDER
The Carrier is directed to comply with this award
within thirty days hereof.
Chairman, Neutral Member
rier Member Labor Member
Dated: