Form 1 NA.TIOT~'iL RAILROAD ADJU'STME-INT BOARD Award Tao. 798
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 78+5
 2-IC G-FO-' 79

( System Federation No. 99, Raihray Employes'
 ( Department, A. F. of T, - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)

DL s ~ui~ SL- Claim of E~1.1)loyes:


That a.ceorLingly, the Illinois Central C:`ttlf Railroad be ordered to componuG.te Laborer Curtis J. Dui'fin for all time lost., and that a1.1. benefits be al1oZ~,ed fox' that period,

 Findin;;s

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

 The carrier or carriers and the G=loye or employes involved in this dislrate axe respectively carrier and employe within the n?earring of the Railway Tabor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

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

The claimant, Curtis J. T1ux'fin, was employed by the Carrier on January 2, 1975, After tvro formal investigations, the claimant was found by the Carrier to have been guilty of falsifying his time card or. February 11, 177, and of insubordination to Shop Superintendent - Car Department, E. Pd. Mzehlenbein, on Fcbrlzary 17, 19`7, He was given a suspension from service from February 17, 1977 through March 18, 1377. The case has been duly processed on the property. :Lt is now before this Board or, appeal by the organization.

 The Organization concedes that the claimant did place a higher rate of pay, nalr_oly, $7.16 on his tune card on February 11, 177, but argues that the claimant felt the work he was performing was a higher paying job and that the clanant felt fiuther that he -v;-as entitled to the rate of $7y16a The record shows that the claimant was assigned to perform work which entailed the digging of a ditch for & pipe tr:at had a broken steam line. He had been assigned to this inDrk previous to February L1, 177, and had been paid the Laborer's rate for such Trrork and had not made any complaints concerning the payment of that rate,. At the investigation he testified that he placed the
 Form 1 Award No, 7986
 page 2 Docket TTo. 78+5

higher rate instead of listing the rate of $5.58 on his card "to see what would happen" because he though it was a water pollution or maintenance job.

 Rule 4 of the Suporintendent's Bulletin of January 1, 1977, states, among other things, that making false reports or statements will be considered extremely serious offenses which will normally subject offenders to dismissal. On the basis of these facts, the Carrier's finding that the claimant was guilty of violating rule 4 is supported abundantly by the record.

 As to the charge of insubordination, the record made at the investigation shows that on February 17, 1977, Superintendent Yuehlenbein attempted to present the claimant with a notice of investigation concerning the February 11, 197`j falsification of his time card. Prior to that time, the Carrier had sent the claimant a letter containing the notice of investigation by certified mail. It ay7pea red that the claimant had not informed tine Carrier of an address cawnge and the letter was returned to the Carrier. Consequently, TMuehlenbei_n, on Febr~aaxy 17, 1977, entered the company's truck shoe where the claimant zras working for. the purpose of handing him the letter,, which convained the notice of investigation, The cla:i_mant refused to accept the letter. Tiuehlenlaein infoxmmd the claimant of the contents of the letter and stated that it -~Fa.s the claimant's obligation to receive the letter. The claimant left the truck shop to search for his union representative, and upon his return with the:- union representative about fifteen minutes later, Superintendent Mzehlenbein infoxned the claimant that he Yras out of service.

 There is a conflict betw°en the testimor.~y- of MueW .enbein at the hearing and that of the claimant as to whether when i:'uehlexibein attempted. to hand the o1.a.imant the letter there was a request for union representation at that time. According to P.luehlenbein, the clairzant simply refused to accept the letter, The clain;ant, on the other hand, alleges that he asked for a union representative and was told that one was not necessary. The hearing officer found that hsuehlenbein's version eras correct and the record amply supports the Carrier's finding that the claimant was insubordinate. Insubordination would be present even if the claimant's version of what took place were to be accepted. A11 that Kuehlenbeir. sought eras to hand the letter to the claimant in order to give him notice, and there would appear to be no necessity for having a union official present on that occasion.

 The Board also holds that the discipline assessed against the claimant was warranted. This Board has often held that acts of dishonesty, such as falsifying time cards, warrants stringent discipline. Second Division Azvard 1756 (Referee Carter), Second Division Award 590 (Referee Gilden). The Board has also considered insubordination as a serious offense. For a ease in which the seriousness of insubordination as an offense in the railroad industry is discussed, see Public Law Board No. 191~+, Award No. 1, Brotherhood

 1 JAs a reasonable rule of conduct not in conflict with the Agreement, contrary to the Organization's contention, the rule may be enforced.
 Form 1 Award No. 7986
 Page 3 Docket No. 785
 2-zcG-FO-t79

 of Railroad. Signalmen and Southern Railway System (Referee Van Wart). There was ample credible evidence to support the Carrier's conclusions and the Board finds that the discipline imposed was reasonable.

    The claim is denied.


                          NATIONAL l~A _LLROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Los rna..r:i_e Brasch - ALInzm.st,rative Assistant

 Dated a' Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of June, 1979.