Form 1 NATIOTTAL RAILROAD ADJTTSTi%T,'13T BOARD Award No. 8258
 SECOND DIVISION Docket TTo. 7688
 2-SIRTO.A-i`A-' 80



Parties to Dispute:


Dispute: Cla.:i: 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 e=-nnlo-y,;e or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and e_aploye "'rithin the cleaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved jrune 21, 1934.

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


Nover:ber 12, 1976, rez oar hours 7 ; 30 a-an to 4: 00 xxn. SometLTle on the ::.or ning of
 that day Claimant received a telepl=ogle call at work from his i n sv rance 2 gent arid
 was granted gel'°_lission to leave h:' ;.s assiLent in order to conduct perso-,al
 business rec^.,rdin~; ail in:3'aY'cL:'3Cc:. r,,,o"__cy uTer the shoo telephone. Thaternoon
 Claimant iras assiE7.led to instaLl bt'__ie :,hoes on a "hi-lined" train which ~.,-as
 needed to service the afternoon ~~ish hour coW;':nlter traffic. At approxi,~iately
 2:10 p:;l Claimant cane in-o tile shoo o_~Tice and asA-ed to use the telephone a.~~,in
 to call his insurance a.,--cnt. the tiechanical Department Sune't"Jisor told C1ai2Ilant
 that the hi-lined car ira^ neeJed fo ' tile rash hour service and that tie should
 finish that job first and tllen he could mace his telephone call. Claimant refused
 to accent this order and insisted several ti-es that he ;;ranted to riake the call
 r.~-h::Il and there". Af t,'r several tL._e~S being refused fiery iSSi on, Claimant anounced in S,Tords or sl:bstauce ti: at siyL2e he was d;-,nied Dc Y_1iSSi0I1 ~O Use tale o.,'ice telephone he ;ras leaving the property to rra}.,e the call with or without permission.
 Form 1 Award No. 8258
 Page 2 Docket No. 7688

Thereupon Claimant walked out of the office, left the property and walked across the street to a public telephone from which he made his call. He returned to the property approximately ten minutes later whereupon he was suspended from service. Following notice and investigation Claimant was assessed discipline of four (4) days actual suspension, plus the two (2) hours of suspension.

 As we view the present record, the evidence supports a conclusion that Claimant eras insubordinate, to his duly authorized, superior. Carrier has preseriued a prima facie case that Clainant disregarded and disobeyed a reasonable order by the I,lechanical Department Supervisor. 71'he burden is upon the employee to rebut this showing, if he can, by evidence of justification. In our judgment he has failed to do so. Clair:ant a'~3.e-es that the telephone eras of an emergency nature and that he "had to" ra':e it at 2:15 pm and not later. He has failed to present persuasive evidence that such was the case. More importantly, he presented no such evidence to his supervisor.

 Accordingly, '-he order to finish his i,.rork before making the call is reascr:able on its face and Clainant has sh= no justifiable reason for refusing it. In the circUmistances the penalty was not unreasonable and i n fact seen s to be intended as remedial rather than punitive. There is no basis for us to reverse or modify the discipline imposed by Carrier.

    Claim denied.


                            ITTATION^:.L RAILROAD ADJUSTI-r'ITT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By ·'.%~-; --yyt,,-~.~--r : ~·'_-.f- _ ?

 ,a' Rosemarie Brasch - rarlinistra.tive Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of march, 1980.