SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
N0. 986
CASE N0. 121
DOCKET
N0. NEC-BMWE-SD-2324D
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 Charles
Cortez 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 admonished the
safety issue.
3. The Claimant should be immediately exonerated
and this entire matter should be expunged from his
record.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Charles Cortez 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. 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 one postponement, the disciplinary investigation was held on
October
26, 1988.
On November 9,
1988,
the Carrier notified the
Claimant that he had been found guilty of the charge brought against
him and was assessed discipline of formal reprimand. On November 18,
JAI
1988, the Claimant filed an appeal of his discipline, which appeal was
denied by the Carrier on December 16, 1988. 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
Carrier Member
/6- /-
9o
Peter Meyers
Neutra Member
onImeb Member