Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTIVLENT BOARD Award No. 7952
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7651
 2-ICG-EW-' 79



Parties to 'Jis~ytzte: ( (Electrical Workers)
 (
 ( Illinois Central Gu1_f Railroad 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 employer involved in this dispute axe 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 dis_pu.te involved herein.


Woodcrest Shop 3:00 FrM - 11:00 PM. He reported for work on March 9, 1975
 a few minutes after 3:00 T'M, He indicated, at that to the Mechanical
 Foreman that he needed a flashlight which was provided him. Thereafter,
 Claimant told the Meche.ni cal Fore:-nan that he did not have airy rubber gloves.
 lie was also given a pair of heavy, black gloves. Claimant Electrician then
 stated that he would go to his car to see if he could -Find a lighter weight
 pair of gloves. Claimant placed his tools dorm and. then went out to his
 ear. Upon his return Claimant vas unable to find his tools. He became
 upset. Claimant kept insisting that the Foreman find. his misplaced tools.
 Finally, said Foreman called the General. Locomotive Foreman and requested
 -that he come to "f" Building. C1 a-irna,nt, in the interim, had left, the
 Mechanical Foreman's off-ice. He :~r-as requested to return thereto and the
 General Locomotive Foreman requested Claimant to explain what the problem

 Was. Claimant kept insisting that he would do no work until they had located his tools.
 Form 1 Award No. 795
 page 2 Docket No. 7651
 2-IC G-EGJ-' 79

 The General Locomotive Foreman informed Claimant that he would see that he was provided with tools. He so instructed the Mechanical Foreman to cads the Electrical Foreman and have him bring him some motor packing tools to "F" Building. Then the General Locomotive Foreman told Claimant that he would get the tools needed, that he should go out and do his job and stop harrassing the Foreman.

 However, Claimant went out to the time clock, clocked out and then returned to the Foreman' S office where he informed the tyro Carrier Representatives that he was going home and they could find themselves another Rotor Packer. Claimant was told that he would have to see 1,11r. Gorman, the Assistant Shop Superintendent before he could return to work. Shortly thereafter, a set of tools were brought for Claimant's use, but he had already clocked out and left the property.

 Subsequently, a notice was semi to Claimant informing that an investigation was to be held March 19, 175, to determine

As a result of that investigation Carrier concluded that Claimant was guilty as charged. His personal record was then reviewed, which reflected that he had previously been suspended for a period of sixty (60) days for insubordination in refusing to vork an assigm:ent :in 1971.. Carrier assessed a thirty (30) day actual suspension for the incident then under investigation. It is that decision which 1_s now appealed to this Board.

 Claimant s~ras accorded a fair hearing. He was properly notified as to the purpose thereof, Ire was accorded the right of representation and to have witnesses. Claimant -vras fairly and capably represented. He participated in the investigation. Claimant exercised his right of appeal. There was sufficient evidence adduced at the march 19, 1975 investigation to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant's culpability. Claimant attempted to insist therein, that he would have worked had he been provided with tools to replace those which had been mislaid. However, Claimant had already left the property before the tools were brought dorm to replace his lost tools, which, incidentally, Claimant later recovered. Claimant also alleged that the reason he had clocked out yras that he "eras upset - had a nervous stomach - and (he) just went home". Yet, nothing appears in the record which indicated that Claimant had previously told anyone that he was feeling ill an the day in question. Despite whatever else might have been a contributory cause, we are impelled to conclude that Claimant here suffers from the result of his own actions. It is clear that Claimant had refused to work his job as a Motor Packer on i%iarch 9, 1975.
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 7952
 Docket No. 7651
 2-ICG-EW-'79

 The Board finds that the discipline assessed was reasonable. This is particularly so when cognizance is given the fact that Claimant had previously been suspended for insubordination. In the instant case Claimant, on the date in question was main guilty of taking matters into his o-~m hands. In such context the discipline is held to be very reasonable. This Claim will be denied.

 A WAR D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUu2MNT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By -4
 t bsmie Brasch - Administrative Assistant