Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 789+
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7753
 2-ICG-FO-'79

( System Federation No. 99, Railway F~nployes `
 ( Department, A. F. of Z. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)


Dispute: Claim of E2loyes:









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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193-.

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

Claimant was dismissed, following investigation, for threatening a foreman and for insubordination. The record discloses that Claimant was on leave of absence because of injuries incurred in an auto accident, On January 5, 177, the General Foreman -received a call from Claimant's wife reporting that Claimant would be reporting for work fox the L1:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. The Foreman asked whether Claimant had secured a release from his doctor. When told that Claimant had no such release, the Foreman infoxmed Claimant's wife that Claimant could not return until he had such release.

 At about 10:30 P.m. that same day, Claimant entered the office, shouting and complaining that his locker had been entered while he was on lea;re. He also displayed a gun. Tie telephoned. the General Foreman, using loud and foul language, After a Special Agent arrived, the Claimant left after informing those present that he had a shotgun, which he was going to use on the General Foreman.
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 7894
 Docket No. 7753
 2-ICG-FO-t79

 The next morning, Claimant twice telephoned the General Foreman, insisted that it was the latter's responsibility to return his property and threatened him. The threat was heard over a telephone extension by a city policeman, who attested to the incident. Claimant was notified by the General Foreman that he was out of service because of his actions, pending an investigation, and that he was not to enter upon company property.

 Later that same day, Claimant entered the General Foreman's office and, in loud and abusive language, demanded his property. Claimant was then arrested by a city policeman for threatening the General Foreman.
had been referred to the proper authorities and was being investigated. Fee
 had been advised that he was not to come onto company property because of
 his behavior (including possession and display of a firearm on company
 property). I10T Claimant appeared on the property, entered the
 Foreman's office, and repeated his loud and abusive d.e2r_a,nds.

 Claimant's conduct cannot be justified. Claimant deliberately and willfully threatened the General Foreman, used abusive language, and came onto company property after being instructed that he was being held out of service pending an investigation of his behavior-8.11 actions tantamount to an act of insubordination. This Board bars upheld the right of Carriers to dismiss employees who bring firearms onto company premises. The record supports the dismissal. We fail to find any reason for interfering with Carrier's action in dismissing the Claimant from its service. We will, therefore, deny the claim.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


BY

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of April, 1979.