SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
CASE N0. 119
DOCKET N0. NEC-BMWE-SD-2368D
PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
TO
DISPUTE: NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
DISPUTE: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood:
1. That the formal reprimand of Claimant W. H.
Larry for alleged violation of N.R.P.C. (Amtrak)
Rules of Conduct Rule L on September 15, 1988,
was unwarranted.
2. The Carrier has completely evaded the safety
issue.
3. The Claimant should be immediately exonerated
and the matter should be expunged from his record.
FINDINGS:
Claimant W. H. Larry was employed by the Carrier as a trackman at
Lorton, Virginia.
On September 23, 1988, the Carrier notified the Claimant of the
following charge:
Violation of N.R.P.C. (Amtrak) Rules of Conduct Rule
L which states, in part . "Obeying Instructions
- Employees must obey instructions, directions, and
orders from Amtrak supervisory personnel . . .
except when confronted by a clear and immediate
danger to themselves, property, or the public.
When, at approximately 12:30 p.m., Thursday,
September 15, 1988, it is alleged by track foreman
G. T. Johnson that you failed to comply with his
instructions to move cross ties while working at the
Amtrak Auto Train facility at Lorton, Virginia.
After several postponements, the disciplinary investigation took place
on December 8, 1988.- On December 13, 1988, the Carrier notified the
claimant that he was found guilty of the charge and was assessed the
discipline of a formal reprimand. On December 22, 1988, the Claimant
filed an appeal of his discipline, which appeal was denied by the
sGr)- ~l~s~
-li9
Carrier on January 25, 1989. Thereafter, the organization filed a
claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging his discipline.
This Board has reviewed 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 violating Rule L
when he failed to obey instructions from his supervisor.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the guilty finding,.we next turn our
attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set
aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
This Board has held in the past that insubordinate actions on the
part of employees can lead to discharge. The Claimant in this case
only received a formal reprimand. Since he clearly did not obey his
supervisor, this Board cannot find that the action taken by the
Carrier was unreasonable. Therefore, the claim will be denied.
Award
Claim denied.
Peter R. Mey
Neutral Member
Carrier Member Organization Member
16- /- a
2