BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 986
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
(AMTRAK - Northeast Corridor)
Case No. 165
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Brotherhood that:
1. The 10-day suspension of Electrician Rominie Hinds for alleged
violation of Rules L and 0 was without just and sufficient cause and
on the basis of unproven charges (System File NEC-BMWE-SD3189D).
2. The Claimant shall be exonerated of the charges and be compensated
for all loss of time.
FINDINGS:
On September 9, 1992, the Claimant R. Hinds and two other electricians were
receiving their work assignments from Foreman R. Gray. They were instructed that they
would be working at the Sunnyside Yard. Foreman Gray further instructed the Claimant
to put on his safety gear since he was not wearing it. Both then proceeded to leave the
room. When they returned, the Claimant allegedly refused to go to the Sunnyside Yard
and instead said he was going home.
On September 11, 1992, the Claimant was charged with alleged violation of Rule
L
insubordination, and Rule 0, abandoning one's work assignment. The Claimant was
found guilty as charged and assessed a 90-day suspension.
After an appeal by the Organization, the finding of guilt was upheld but the
discipline was reduced to a ten-day suspension with the Claimant being compensated for
q8~-its
the additional 25 days that he was held out of service. The Organization, however,
continues its appeal on behalf of the Claimant contending that the Carrier failed to prove
the charges leveled against the Claimant.
The parties not being able to resolve the issues, this matter came before this Board.
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 insubordination when he failed to comply with the instructions of his supervisor
and left work without permission from supervision: Consequently, the Claimant was
properly found guilty of violating the insubordination rule, Rule L, and Rule O, which
prohibits abandoning one's work assignment.
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 impose.
This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its actions
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
The Claimant's previous service record reveals six suspensions ranging from five
to fifteen days. In this case, although the Claimant originally received a 90-day
suspension, it was subsequently reduced to a ten-day suspension. Given the previous
disciplinary history of this Claimant, and the serious wrongdoing of which he was
properly found guilty in this case, this Board cannot find that the Carrier acted
unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it issued the ten-day suspension to him.
Therefore, the claim will be denied.
2
AWARD
Claim denied.
PETER ~RS
Neutr M ber
Carrier Memb/r Organi tion Member
DATEDG~/p9 ~ DATE : - ~~ `I
`f
3