Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7$45
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7759
2-C&O-FO-'79



( System Federation No. 4, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C . I . 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)
(
( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:





Findings

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

The carrier or carriers and the employs or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employs 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.



Claimant was charged with insubordination and disobeying his supervisor's instructions when he left his fob without permission on November 20, 1976.

An investigative hearing was held on December 3, 1976at which time he was found guilty on the specification and dismissed from service on Jeauax^r 14, 1977.

Claimant contends that he was not given adequate justification for this termination and it was therefore arbitrary., unreasonable and as abuse of managerial discretion.
Form 1 Award No. 78+5
page 2 Docket No. 7759
2-C&O-FO-' ?'9 err'

Our review of the investigative transcript does not support these assertions. We find nothing in the record that shows that this hearing was inconsistent with appropriate due process standards.

Claimant was found guilty of a very. serious offense that cannot be tolerated in this critical industry. He left his fob at 5:00 A.M. despite his supervisor's explicit refusal to grant him permission to leave at this time. He was obligated to remain at his fob until the end of his shift which was 8:00 A.M. That he chose to disregard his supervisor's decision, is the absence of extenuating circumstances, was solely at his peril. It was a volitional choice that was dust unacceptable.

We will not detail the many Second Division precedents dealing with like infractions, except to note the relevance of Second Division Award x+782, where we held in pertinent part, "Disobedience consists is taking the law into one's own hands and is insubordination which is proper basis for dismissal."

Claimant's behavior, is this instance, certainly falls within this definitional holding. It cannot be construed as innocuous deportment. If Carrier permitted its employee to disregard the work hours schedule, it would impede rail operations and adversely affect the public interest.

Moreover, when we consider his conduct against his prior disciplinary history we are compelled, of necessity, to deny the claim.

AWARD

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
Rational Railroad Adjustment Board

NATION RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


BY
emasie Branch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of February, 1979.