BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
CASE N0. 123
DOCKET NO. NEC-BMWE-SD-2441D
PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
TO
DISPUTE: NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
DISPUTE: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood:
1. The three-day suspension of Claimant John Oliver for
alleged violation of Rule L of the N.R.P.C. (Amtrak) Rules
of Conduct on December 14, 1988, was unwarranted.
2. The Carrier willfully and flagrantly violated the
Agreement.
3. That Claimant's discipline be overturned and that he be
exonerated. If not, a letter of warning or instruction is
acceptable.
FINDINGS:
Claimant John Oliver was employed by the Carrier as a trackman
at Trenton, New Jersey.
On January 4, 1989, the Carrier notified the Claimant of the
following charge and scheduled a formal investigation for January 11,
1989:
Violation of Rule L of the N.R.P.C. Rules of Conduct
. . "Employees must obey instructions . . . from
Amtrak supervisory personnel . . ."
Specifically, on December 14, 1988, at approximately
10:45 a.m. at MP 61.2, you used an alleged injury to
avoid complying with legitimate instructions from G.
L. Wolfe and J. McLaughlin to operate a Burro Crane.
A second letter dated January 4, 1989, was sent by the Carrier to the
Claimant advising him that the charge was rescinded. However, on
January 9, 1989, the Carrier notified the Claimant that the January 4,
1989, Notice of Formal Investigation was postponed and rescheduled to
January 17, 1989. The disciplinary investigation was held and
completed on January 17, 1989.On January 30, 1989, the Carrier
s 6A- 98~
notified the Claimant that he had been found guilty of the charge
brought against him and was assessed discipline of a three-day
suspension. On January 17, 1989, the Claimant filed an appeal of his
suspension, which was denied by the Carrier on April 13, 1989. The
Organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf,
challenging his suspension.
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 finding that the Claimant was guilty of violating Amtrak Rule of
Conduct L when he failed to comply with legitimate 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.
In the case at hand, the Claimant did not follow the instructions
of his supervisor as he is required to do. The Carrier issued a three
day suspension to him. This Board has stated in the past that
insubordinate behavior is grounds for discipline up to and including
discharge in some cases. Therefore, given the facts in this case,
this Board cannot find that the action taken by the Carrier was
unreasonable. The claim must be denied.
2
sa.9-9sh
Award
Claim denied.
--
Peter R. Mk rs
Neutral Member
i~ aC
Carrier Member
T
anization Member
3