Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7424
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7351
 2-C&IdW-CM-' 77




Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:





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

 The carrier ox carriers and the employe ox 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 ox" the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Numerous prior awards of this Board set forth our function in discipline cases. Our function in discipline cases is not to substitute our judgment fox the Carrier's, nor to decide the matter in accord with what we might ox might not have done had it been ours to determine, but to pass upon the question whether, witnout weighing it, there is substantial. evidence to sustain a finding of guilty. If that :question is decided in the affirmative, the penalty imposed fox the violation is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of the Carrier. We axe not warranted in disturbing Carrier's penalty unless we can say it clearly appears from the .record that the Carrier's action write respect thereto was discriminatory, unjust, unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary, so as to constitute an abuse of that discretion.
 1400
 Form 1 Award No. 7424
 Page 2 Docket No. 7351
 2-C&ZVW-CM- `77

 The record before us shows that Claimant was instructed to open switches at 2:x+0 PM by Carrier's Assistant Car Foreman. Claimant, however, delayed opening these switches until 2:50 PM ox 2:55 PM, because Claimant went first to Carrier's "Barn Boss" to complain that Carrier's Assistant Car Foreman was picking on him, by always wanting Min to throw the switches. Claimant alleges that the throwing of switches is a "penalty job."

 We find that this is not a case of blatant insubordination, because Claimant opened the switches, although he delayed doing so fox approximately 10 minutes. Claimant should have opened the switches when told to do so, and then have filed a grievance, if he believed the Assistant Car Foreman was violating the Agreement.

 One of the most firmly established principles in labor relations is that an employee must obey supervision even when he disagrees with an order. Generally speaking, an order may be challenged only through the grievance procedure, which was set up to eliminate unseemly disputes at the time an order is given. The general principle often is stated as: "Obey now. Grieve later."

 The reason fox this principle is that a railroad yard is not a debating society. its object is the movement of trains. When a controversy arises, the movement of trains cannot wait.

 Furthermore, it would be destructive of proper employer-employee relations, if the employee was the final judge of what instructions he should follow ox honor.

 Under the circumstances of the instant case, however, we think discharge was unreasonable, and Claimant should be reinstated, but with no back ,pay. Claimant is warned, though, that future recurrence of such behavior may well result in immediate dismissal.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By ~/~e,W,r-a'~t~-R..~ ~·i-~ ~~-.fir
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of December, 1977.
 ,~"r~-rr