Case No. 106 -


PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
 Lines)
 STATEMENT That the Carrier's decision to assess Claimant
 OF CLAIM sixty (60) demerits was excessive, unduly
 harsh and in abuse of discretion, and in
 violation of the terms and provisions of the
 current Collective Bargaining Agreement.
 That because of the Carrier's failure to prove
 and support the charges by introduction of
 substantial bona fide evidence, that Carrier
 now be required to compensate Claimant for any
 and all loss of earnings suffered, and that
 the charges be removed from his record.
 FINDINGS

        Upon reviewing the record, as submitted, I find that the Parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Special Board of Adjustment is duly constituted and has jurisdiction of the Parties and.the subject matter; with this arbitrator being sole signatory.

        A formal hearing was held on December 5, 1989, to determine whether or not the Claimant had violated Rules 1051 and 607_ of the Rules and Regulations for the government of the Maintenance of Way and Structures and Engineering Department Employes.


                                  1

                                        9q7-10&

On December 18, 1989, the Carrier notified the Claimant that the evidence from the investigation indicated he had violated the following portions of the above cited'rules: Rule 1051: RESPONSIBILITY:

      They have charge of and are responsible for the safety of their men and for the safe and

      economical maiintenance of track and roadbed -

      assigned to them. They must keep records

      and make prescribed reports of labor and

      material.

      Rule 607: CONDUCT: Employes must not be:


      (2) Negligent; (6) Quarrelsome.


      Any act of hostility, misconduct or willful disregard or negligence affecting the interests of the Company is sufficient cause for dismissal and must be reported.


      Courteous deportment is required of all employes in their dealings with the public, their subordinates and each other.

      Boisterous, profane or vulgar language is -

forbidden.
 The incident which precipitated the investigation occurred
 on October 20, 1989, when the Claimant allegedly became
 quarrelsome and negligent near MP 534.1 near Cresent Lake,
 Oregon, while working as Track Foreman replacing rail. The
 Claimant was at first directed to put new rail into a section of
 track by welding the new section in place. Because of delays in
 getting the rail at the work site, he was subsequently directed,
 via radio, not to weld the section, but to bolt it into place in
 order to avoid overtime. After receiving these instructions,
 the Claimant unilaterally made the decision to weld one end of
 the section while bolting the other. However, since the rail
 arrived later than expected, it was necessary to obtain more

                            2

                                        9~f7-~o~

track time. While he was contacting the Dispatcher from his truck, 40' from the actual work site, the Track Supervisor arrived on the scene and told the welders to bolt both ends of the rail. When the Claimant returned from his truck, he became irate that the Supervisor had contradicted his directions. He then turned the job over to the Supervisor, despite being asked to finish the job, and he then released his track time.
 Because of his refusal to continue the,job in the manner directed by his Supervisor, charges were filed against the Claimant.
 On the day of the incident, the Track Supervisor could have handled the matter more effectively. This Board empathizes with the Claimant on the matter of the failure of the Track Supervisor to discuss the problem with him directly before altering the directions he had given to his crew. At best, this put the Claimant in an ackward position with the men who worked with him.
 That said, however, we must consider whether the Track Supervisor's error excuses the Claimant's behavior. The Board does not believe it does. He, too, erred when he verbally chastised the Track Supervisor in front of other employes. Besides, he had been given directions as to how the Roadmaster wanted the job completed. He had an obligation to either do the job in that manner or to contact one d~his two supervisors to suggest the job be done otherwise. While it is certainly true, a foreman has to be allowed flexibility in directing his crew, once his supervisors give explicit instructions on how they want

                            3

                                          9q7-/0~P

a job done, s/hemust communicate with them, if at all possible, before altering these instructions. In addition, it is a well-established rule in labor relations that if an employe feels he has been wronged,. he must address the poblem through his Union and the Agreement. He cannot resort to "self-help". The Claimant should have completed his job as instructed and then taken the matter up with his Union.
 Even though there is no evidence the Claimant violated Rule 1051, as cited, the Claimant was quarrelsome. And he was negligent to the extent he refused to continue working and released hiss track time, refusing to get it back. In these respects he was guilty of violating Rule 607.
 The Claimant was afforded a full and fair hearing. Considering his behavior and his record, the sixty demerits issued'in this case are justifiable.

                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

 Ca~ I J. Zamp ini Ne~Ztral Submitted:

 March 29, 1990
 Denver, Colorado

 4