Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6456
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6299
 2-GM&O-CM-'73
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
 { System Federation No. 29, Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

Dispute : Claim of Employes:


          2. That accorlingly, the Carrier be ordered to restore Carman Cisco to service with all rights unimpaired, and paid for all time lost including ie~--Llth and Welfare premiums and with six (6) percent interest annually on wages.


Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and erqmloye within the meaning of the Railway Lapp Act as approved June 21, ly?4.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction, over the dispute involved herein.

        Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


        The notice to cla inu,vt advised h.m that he was removed from service

pending the hearing, for in,~mbordiration. Rule 34 of the Agreement provides for; .
 suspension pending a hearing.

 Claimant's representative at the hearing argued for reinstatement but stated, in effect, that it would not be appropriate to compensate claimant for
 wages lost. This would lend credibility in sUpport of the conclusion that the i
 claimant was insubordinate as understood by the parties.

        Claimant did not deny his foreman's testimony at the hearing that the

normal procedure was for claimint to carry out an order but, "after a thorough j
 argument". The Organization claimed that by failing to reprimand and discipline
 claimant for arguing with his foreman on prior occasions, the carrier had lost
 the right to impose the discipline of dismissal at this time. This is based on
 the theory that to make an issue of the arguments at this time was a change of
 policy, and that such change required notice by way of warnings to claimant before
 imposing severe penalties.
 I

                                          _ I

i
 _ , , Aw or d No. 69-E 56 .
 Docket m. 6299
                    _ . .: 2_R~..o_c _'73C


Cc=rr2Ci t S d CC 910_':.. toact il_?On an 6ruploye 's ' c oU.Z'Se ^f improper condiic V
 Tr:2:~I co:-;1e a V ary t::r.:° c i L shoald no v- req.h..ire cT. s :2.t emen L of -Policy for 2n employ e
                                                              \~'


to: 'now the, cons '['=L bick-ering and 2,:guLng with his supervisor will lead to LI'CZ:"I.ee E:'~:ei? CZ.^?:;1~3..'^~ fort--o' to -but off hi.;. torch at %12^ said of ,h3.s sh1Ft., he provided the -pro1: crbi2-l "last straw" tO ?.21 .'!rritwMZng situation.
        There was sl-:bstantial evidence to sup

port the bear ino officer's conclusion. i~tary' pr icr lriards ?lave established t~iat the policy of this Board is to leave undisturbed a decision based -o:i substal~tial..ev_-Wence produced at a bearing which has been fairly cordueted -after prope-- notice. Likewise, it is the policy of this Board to avoid interference with penalties unless the penalty is unreasonable and 6-%O-e8s1v*e to ~thq poilit:' where it is a rbitrary and capricious. Una tine ontradicted evidence is that claimant has not been a cooperative or willing
 employ-2. In art industry where everyone should work together for their own safety I
as w:M as in the publ=ic, interest, ;:e do not find that t zle penalty imposed was
 arb-i'Z?', ry or capricinu;ii..
                  a to A R n


Claim slenieO . .. . .
NATIONAL WULROAD ADUUSTr-iEXT BOARD.

                                By Order of Second Division


          _ ~-i

Attests f('~ '~- f~ _
                    i

        Executive Secretary


Dated at. Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February, 197-1.