SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 71
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-1935D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
FINDINGS:
Claimant E. Gardner is employed as a work equipment engineer by
Carrier at its Perryville, Maryland, facility. On July 16, 1987,
Claimant was directed to attend a hearing in connection with the
following charges
Violation of NRCP (Amtrak) 2525 (09/85) Rules of Conduct, Rule "L"
which reads in part:
Rule "L" "Employees must obey instructions, directions, and
other order ·from Amtrak supervisory personnel and officers except
when confronted by a clear and immediate
danger to
themselves,
property or the public . . ."
Specification: In that on Monday, July 13, 1987, at approximately
9:30 a.m. at the office of W.H. Sadowsky, M.D., an accredited
.. company .physician,-.loca.ted.In..Harve_.De Grace.,. Maryland, you failed
to submit to a periodic physical as scheduled in your behalf and
outlined in the Northeast Corridor "Special Instructions," Rule No.
1008-Al.
The hearing took place on August 27, 1987, and as a result, Claimant
was assessed a time-held-out-of-service suspension, equalling twentyseven working days. The Organization thereafter filed a claim on
Claimant's behalf, challenging the suspension.
This
Hoard 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 refusing the directions of
his supervisors to take a periodical physical examination. Although
the Claimant admits he refused to take the physical, he states that he
had taken earlier physicals, including one just three months before,
and that there was no need for the additional physical. However, the
1
q8~-~ I
rules in this industry are clear that if an employee disagrees with
the direction from his supervisor, he must comply with that direction
and file a grievance later. One cannot merely disobey instructions
because one believes that an additional physical examination is
unnecessary. Thus, there was a rule violation; and the Carrier was
within its rights to issue discipline to the Claimant.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to justify discipline, we next turn our attention to the
type of discipline imposed. In this case, the Claimant was given a
27-day suspension. This Board cannot find that the action taken by
the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore,
the claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
Neutral Member
i 1
Carrier Membe /Organization Member
Date:
2