Foam 1 HATIOiVU RAILROAD ADaILTS`liI4,GivT BOARD Awar d No. 7717
SFCOi~D DIVISION Docket No. 755 7
2-L11vi-EW-' 78





Parties to Disru te: ( (Electrical Workers)



DZS 'ate: Claim of I:f:~al.o;~es:
...

















Findin: Ts

The Second Divisa on of the yd;jus tn:cnt hoard, upon the whole record anLI all the evidence, finds ti:at:

The carrier or carriers and the e?n nloye or elr_ployes Involved 9.n this dispute are respectively carx'iev' and employe within tile meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjus tment Board has jurisdiction oven the dispa'i,e involved herein.



On October 12, 1976 Claixr.r7~.nt was rer,iavecz. from service and charged vrith insubordination; he v-as charged with refusJn,- to accept. and acknowledge receipt of, a, set of climbing tools aqd a boo:~:--71-e·i: on pole c1a.:ubing instruction and ~.'`arther 1 ea. v:i nS the r)r op,:~rty at cra:itt-in^; t:i.me despite bej-n,-_,,, asked by a Carrier officer to remain to discuss his refusal.

The record contains substantial ev:i.de-rrce to sm,,)port Carrier's conclusion that C1aLriawt vras -,Liilty of the ehwx-~es. However, it is also
F orm 1 Page 2

Award NO . 7717
Docket I`do. 755 7
2-T,~LT-EW-' 78

apparent that Carrier had, to a degree e, contrived to force the situation leading to the discharge: specifically by choosing to offer climbing tools to an employe who had earlier in the same day admitted to Carrier's officer that he suffered from a severe fear of heights which made it difficult, i. not impossible, for him to climb pole,. In spite of this circumstance it :is abundantly c):al that an employe choosing to contest the validity of an assignment has the obligation to comply wth di.rectio.s received from Carrier arid raising the issue through the grievance procedure subsequently.

In its sub::ission, Carrier cites and relies :i_21 part on Award 7035 of this :Board ( in addition to others). In that Award we note that we said, inter alias

"Insubordination .. . can eY:i..st in .varyiri,S degrees of seriousness. Similarly, -(;he di_sci.pli_ne ini"nosed should be measured by the sericusn°Es of the offense..."

In this dispute there is no question but that Clair^writ was guilty o, insubordination. However, in the 1:'_gM of tile particular ciwumstances surrounding the incident, we find Vat the discipline assessed has served its p'._1rpOSe and direct that Clainnnt be reinstated without compensation for time lost, but i:ith senio:rity ri.~TInts u21~.T2.ix'ed.

A hT A R D

Claim sustained in part in accordance with the Findings above.

1dAT1:0I~;E':T~ h:ATLF:OAD ADTUST%U,7y`T BGARTJ

By Order of Second hivision


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

,,mC)S4mari.e BY'aSC:h - Administrative Assistant

Dated J Chicago, Illinois, this l.st day of November, 1978.