SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 924
Award No.
Docket No. 91
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The sixty (60) day suspension assessed Trackman R.E. Lue for
alleged failure to comply with instructions issued by
Roadmaster E. W. Henry was unwarranted, unsupported and unjust.
[Organization File 4D-4906; Carrier File 81-85-58-D]
(2) Trackman R.E. Lue shall be allowed the remedy prescribed in
Rule 19(d)."
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.
On September 19, 1984, Claimant contacted his supervisor to
report his absence due to pain from an earlier on-the-job injury.
His supervisor directed Claimant to report to the Blair Roadmaster's
office for an appointment with a company physician. Claimant
notified that office that he would not report for the scheduled
examination. Claimant subsequently was directed to attend a formal
investigation of the charge:
Your responsibility for your failure to comply with instructions
issued by E.W. Henry, Roadmaster to report to Blair Roadmaster's
Office on Wednesday, September 19, 1984 and your failure to "`
report for a medical examination scheduled for 11:45 A.M. at '
Cogley Clinic as directed by the ADM-E's Office on Wednesday
September 19, 1984.
The investigation was held as scheduled, and a copy of the transcript
has been made a part of the record. We find that the investigation
was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
~Sa, era y-
,~u,~
93
This Board has reviewed all of the evidence and testimony in this
case, and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to
support the Carrier's finding that the Claimant was guilty of failure
to comply with the instructions issued by his supervisor.
Consequently, the Carrier had the right to issue discipline to him.
Although the Claimant believes that he had a good reason for not complying
with the Carrier's request to report for a medical examination, the
rule in this industry, as in many others, is that one must comply
first and then file a grievance if the employee believes that the
order is improper. In this case, the Claimant did not comply
with the order and therefore subjected himself to discipline.
The organization argues that the 60-day suspension was excessive
under the circumstances. However, this Board has reviewed the
extensive discipline record of this Claimant and believes that the 60day suspension for this fifteenth disciplinary action of this Claimant
during his six years of employment is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious.
Award:
Claim denied.
I
v~
Chairman, Neutral
r
-j2rie Member ` Employee rlemb
Date:-
2
2