Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEL"T BOARD Award No. 7229
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7064
 2-A&S-CM-'77



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

 ( Alton and Southern Railway Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:



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 employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

Petitioner's position, simply staed, is that the claimant became ill on the job with a stomach disorder but able to work his regular inside job because-of the proximity of the lavatory; he was net well enough, however, to assume an outside assignment. When his foreman, in an effort to fill a temporary vacancy at carrier's hump operation, ordered claimant to fill such vacancy the claimant informed the foreman that he was sick, that he was not going to work the hump job as ordered, and that he was going home sick. ThE! foreman's response to the claimant's statement was "that he had to be seriously i11 to go horse." Claimant left the property and the hump job was filled with another employee. Petitioner avers that the foreman's response was, at best, vague and did not constitute a clear refusal to claimant that he was authorized to go home; therefore claimant. felt he had properly notified his supervisor of his , illness and was not insubordinate when he then went home. Claimant testified that he had felt unwell for two days preceding thE: date involved but not sufficiently so to seek the care of a doctor.
 Form 1 Award No. 7229
 Page 2 Docket No. 7064
 2-A&S-CM-' 77

 The Carrier's position is that the claimant's refusal to work the hump job was a clear act of insubordination; that it was the order to work a job not to his liking that prompted claimant to "allege" illness and that he left the property without authority. The foreman testified that he lacked authority to grant an employee leave of absence. The incident was reported by a written note from the foreman to the Assistant Mechanical Superintendent. That note stated as follows:

The record contains unrefuted testimony by a fellow employee, Mr. Richard. Davis, whether the claimant mentioned his feeling sick prior to the time of the incident, as follows:







It is noted that this conversation actually took place prior to the beginning of claimant's shrift.

 The Board also notes the following exchange during testimony given by claimant's foreman, Mr. DeRossett:





"A. Yes.
 Form 1 Award No. 7229
 Page 3 Docket No. 7064
 2-A&S-CM-'77
 "Q,. The night in question, did you tell Mr. Tyrie Harris he
 couldn't go home, because he was sick?
 "A. I stated that he had to be seriously ill to go home.
 "Q. Mr. DeRossett, I think you misunderstood my question. I asked
 you the night in question did you tell Mr. Tyrie Harris he
 could not go home account of his illness?

 This Board is well aware of the volume of prior awards that hold to the principle that discipline assessed by a Carrier will be upheld so long as it is not harsh, arbitrary or capricious. This Board is equally cognizant of often stated principle that, in discipline cases, the burden is on the carrier to prove by probative, objective evidence that the allegedly aggrieved employee dial, in fact, commit an infraction and that punishment was warranted. (See Second Division Award No. 6419, among many others).

 We have thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence and partisan positions submitted to the Board in this case and conclude that the Carrier did not prove by probative, objective evidence that the claimant committed an act of insubordination as charged. It is noted that the period of discipline runs from December 18, 1974 thru February 27, 1975, the claiiiant's name having been restored to the seniority roster on April 1, 1975. We will therefore sustain the claim to the extent that claimant be compensated for all regular time lost, less all wages received by him from other sources and all money benefits received under the provisions of any Federal or State law -which provides for unemployment insurance benefits, with seniority rights unimpaired. That portion of the claim calling for payment of all fringe benefits with interest on wages is denied.

 Rule 19 (f), of the Schedule Agreement, clearly sets forth the agreed upon terms under which an employee reinstated account of having been unjustly dismissed shall receive compensation.






Form 1 Award No. 7229
 Page 4 Docket No. 7064
 2-A&S-CM-t77
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division
 Attest: Executive Secretary

_ By
 semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
 I

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of March, 1977.