Form 1 NATIONAL BAIT-ROAD ADJUS7MENT BOARD Award No. 8168
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. i97
 2-CR-CM-' 79



Parties to Dis-pute: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( Consolidated Rail Corporation

 Dispute: Claim of i,rr.nl ores

        (a) That the Carrier violated the controlling agreement when on May 20, 1977, it assessed 10 days actual suspension 1,!ny 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, Jane 1, 2, 3, 1977, to Car Repairer Robertosmiiy, Cor,ai1 Repair -Facility, Deadir:g, Pennsyl-~ania, as a result of a hearin,- and investigation conducted on '~.'ay 5, 1977.


        (b) That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to corpersate Car Repairer Robert Kos^ds'_-sy the 10 days actual s us pens ion and Memorial Day as ;;ell as any other co:rrmensation the Claimant s:,ould have earned d',irin~ t.ae 10 day per: od he was serving his disciplin:;; and further that the Carrier remove all record of this discipline and that Claimant's service record be restored, unimpaired.


Findin&rs:
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 employes involved in this dispute axe respectively carrier and er.loye aithln 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.

      Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


Follo,-ring an investigative hearing conducted in a fair and proper manner, the Claimant was assessed a ten-day disciplinar7 suspension for his cond'act on April 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14, 10,77. The offenses of which he was charged include the following
 Form 1 A:=yard No. 8168
 Page 2 Docket No. 797
 2-CR-CTA-' 79

 April 7 -- Being absent from his assigned work and then stating to his foreman that he chose not "to over aor:,c this particular day" as "this was a holiday"".

      April 14 -- Insubordination to his foreman in refusing to carry out


                                4

a work order excent under conditions he specifed; and being absent from his assigned work at both the beginning and end of the work day.

 April 11, 12, 13, and 14 -- Failing to accomplish the amount of work which the Carrier considers adequate.

 An examination of the record leaves no reason for the Board to ques tiaa the Carrier's finding that the Claimant was guilty of the charges.

 In the notice for the hearing, the Claimant 1;ras charged ~..th violation of Rule 1 (Hours of Service), Section 1, and Rules 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Safety Rules BOOK.

 Rule 4, referring to "undivided attention to duty"; Rule 5, making insubordination subject to discipline and possible dischar`e; and Rule 7, requiring exclusive attendance to duties dur_mg ~~rescribed ::ours, provide sufficient grounding on ;.rhiloh to base the Carrier's charges. The Cl a imwn-`,; was fully aware of the conduct of which he was accus=ed prior to and d--.min; the investigative hearing. The penalty involved is by no means excessive.

 Rule 1 deals .-iith hours of service and s hardly intended, standing by itself, as a disciplinary rule. :'Vhile the Orgy anization n..a es this arE,uement with so,-q-- marit, this does not excuse tho, ilaimrLnt's con{:act itoelf and is not of sig-nificant importance in vie:xr of the Carrier's reference to directly relevan t safety rules.

                        A '.Y A R D


      Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJ-JST'.EN NITT BOAR7

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 '' .osema.,.rie i3rascii Administrative ?-ssistant

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