Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST:·MYT BOARD Award No. 8223
 SECOND DIVISITS Docket No. 7980
 2-EJ8L- -FO- 180



Parties to Di sgate : ( (Firemen & Oilers)


Disute: Claim of LEFroloyes





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 employes involved ir_ this dispute axe respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Rail~,ray l;sbor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Di-%Tision of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

An investigative hearing was held an November 2, 1977 to determine -,rhether Claimant was insiibordinate to the Roundhouse Foreman on October 2, 1077 -,,rhen he refused work as instructed, concerning new Federal Railray Administration Service Pit Loczout Regulations.

 Claimant was found guilty of the charged specification and his car=ginal dismissal from service on October 2, 1977 was sustained on Noverbar 7, 1977. THis uispcsition was appealed on the property and is presently before this Board. for appellate consideration.
to the fcreraan's disciplf.nary~ action on October 2, 1,77, we find thaw Cle:'_'Paz1i; was
 manifestly 7_nsubardlna 'G`: 7-t.-an he refused to er~ri c° locai'_otive 700 t~.^.';,t'._~ h,::
 concl·:ded that his duties did not include compliance wi .-h the Yeder al Railroad
 Administration reo lations and the servicing of locomotives, Claimant -,was und.e:r
 an 1Z.:i-equivocal emp-107 7,at ion to-execizte-erv`-t'
 ::`
 1nci,~"uctian and v~ai taa1Y'al- s:._...:i_.',:;. a i·1'~a.i~rie rr~f-j.T-ed this
 does, poi; Show that ile was 2Cnfron"ted W''th c. ral')L:blf unsafe worinlwce._ s`,.Gaa'tiCY~ Or
 that, he uas unqualified to perform these duties. He should. have i~r~3e·c~: ;;ed the
 instructions and grieved later pursuant to applicable Agr eeament =;u.l.es rather
 Form 1 _ Award No. 8223
 Page 2 Docket No. 7980
 2-EJ&E-FO-' 80

 than seek self help if he felt that the work requested was outside his job desceiption. By refusing to obey his superior, in the absence of a compelling mitigative rationale, he placed himself in an untenable position.

 We believe, based upon the evidentiary record and Claimant's prior disciplinary history, that Carrier's dismissal determination, was not capricious or an abuse of managerial discretion. Claimant was provided with a fa:_r and an impartial hearing and the conclusion reached was commensurate with the gravity of the infraction. This Board has consistently held as a matter of judicial policy that insubordination in whatever guise or form is just unacceptable in the railroad industry. While we axe constrained by the force and clarity of the evidence to affirm Carrier's terminative decision, we believe that his dismissal to date was sufficient penalty for the offense. Accordingly, predicated upon this finding, we will order his reinstatement to his former position with the added proviso that T~re will look unkindly upon any future recidivist behavior. This disposition comports with the tenets of progressive discipline and the Board's recognition of the need for constructive rehabilitation.




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By _ _ _~' ._---- .
 osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

      Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this January 16th, 1980.