AWARDS 101 - OBEY NOW - GRIEVE LATER

Third Division Award No. 29078 (Wesman)

"The Organization, in its brief, suggests that Claimant had `good reason' for not appearing at work on the days in question; to wit, he felt the work being assigned him was outside of his craft. The rate exceptions to the `Obey now, grieve later' maxim in insubordination cases, such as genuine health or safety concerns, is well recognized by this Board. Third Division Awards 21538 and 27290. However, an employee attempting to invoke such exceptions bears a heavy evidentiary burden of proving that circumstances warranted such concerns. In the instant case, it is established on the record that Claimant unilaterally determined he would withhold himself from service until he was satisfied that he would do track work and not repair work. In short, the Claimant resorted to self-help to enforce his interpretation of the Agreement between the Parties.

"Under the circumstances, the dismissal should be upheld. The Claimant was a relatively short-time employee (20 months) who demonstrated blatant disregard for the Carrier's policies and procedures. There is no basis on this record for making an exception to the `Obey now, grieve later' maxim. Accordingly, we see no reason to overturn Carrier's assessed discipline."

Second Division Award No. 12284 (Duffy)

"It is clear from the evidence presented at the Hearing that Claimant intentionally caused delays in releasing engine consists for service in order to call attention to what he felt was a shortage of laborers at the Diesel Shop. While Claimant may or may not have had a legitimate complaint, he cannot be allowed to take matters into his own hands in this fashion when there are established procedures for pursuing grievances. The basic operative rule for employees in the railroad industry has always been `comply now, and grieve later,' and there is nothing in the record of this case which would justify an exception to that rule.

"The Board finds that there was substantive evidence that Claimant was guilty as charged, that he received a fair and impartial Hearing, and that the discipline assessed was commensurate with the nature of the offense. We therefore find no reason to disturb the Carrier's disposition of this matter."

Third Division Award No. 29228 (Zamperini)

". . . First, the evidence shows he was clearly guilty of insubordination. There was no reason for him to challenge the directives of his Supervisor. If he believed the Supervisor was violating his rights under the Agreement, he should have followed instructions and then filed a Claim."

First Division Award No. 24147 (Benn)

". . . One of the most fundamental concepts of labor relations is that if an employee is given an instruction, that instruction is to be followed and, if the validity of that instruction is to be challenged, that challenge comes through the subsequent invocation of the dispute resolution process - i.e., the employee must `obey now, grieve later.' Claimants were clearly given instructions to report to the Chicago Zone. They clearly refused to comply with those instructions. Claimants' obligation was to report to the Chicago Zone and then file claims over the propriety of the recall. The recognized exceptions to the `obey now, grieve later' rule are not present in this case. The instructions to report to the Chicago Zone did not place Claimants in a position where their safety was in potential jeopardy or required Claimants to perform an unlawful act. Because of the conflicting arguments concerning which Agreement applies in this case, we cannot say that the instructions to report to the Chicago Zone were in flagrant disregard of the terms of the governing Agreement. Further, requiring Claimants to comply with the instructions and then grieve would not have mooted the dispute. If Claimants' position on the scope of recall was correct, the dispute resolution process could have afforded all the relief necessary to make them whole for an erroneous recall. At best, there was a bona fide dispute as to whether they had to report to the Chicago Zone which, if ultimately shown to be an incorrect instruction, could have been remedied through the grievance process.

"Claimants obligations to comply with given instructions and protest the propriety of those instructions later is clear. However, the status of this record as developed on the property on the question of whether the governing Agreement permits Claimants' recall to the Chicago Zone is not definitely clear. The arguments presented on both sides of the question are not insubstantial and the record is in conflict. Our concern in this matter is that although the dispute may be bona fide, ultimately we may be sanctioning the termination of seniority and employment under the terms of a self-executing contract provision that may not be applicable. In this case, that concern dictates the restoration of Claimants' seniority. However, because Claimants were obligated to comply with the instructions given to them and then grieve the propriety of those instructions, no backpay shall be required."

Third Division Award No. 29333 (Wesman)

"In reviewing the record before us, the Board finds that Claimant clearly refused a direct order to perform work. Notwithstanding the Organization's protestations of mitigating factors, this Board continues to adhere to the well established principle that it is an employee's responsibility to `obey now and grieve later' unless he is in genuine fear for his safety or compliance would constitute an illegal act. Therefore, in the absence of a showing that the discipline was excessive or represented disparate treatment, the Board finds no basis for modifying Carrier's assessment of discipline."

First Division Award No. 24418 (Eischen)

". . . It is understandable that Claimant was frustrated by what he perceived to be a violation of his agreement rights. However, the concept of 'obey now and grieve later' is certainly not new to anyone in this industry."