SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
CASE NO. 120
DOCKET NO. NEC-BMWE-SD-2367D
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 Maurice
Jones 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 entire matter should be expunged from his
record.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Maurice Jones was employed by the Carrier as a truck
driver 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 . . "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 that you failed to
comply with his instructions to move cross ties
while at Lorton, Virginia.
After several postponements, the disciplinary investigation was held
on December 8, 1988. On December 13, 1988, the Carrier notified the
Claimant that he was guilty of the charge brought against him and was
assessed discipline of formal reprimand. On December 22, 1988, the
Claimant filed an appeal of his discipline, which appeal was denied by
5 0,.i - 9814,
the 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. Meyers
Neutral~e ber
Carrier Member ganization Member
la- i- 96
2