Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9074
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9293
2 -NR PC -F O- ' 82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward M. Hogan when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers
Parties to Dispute: (.
( National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Dispute: Claim of Employes:





Findings

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole reccr a and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute. are respectively carrier and employe within 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.



The Claimant was formally charged with failure to comply with verbal instructions from his foreman and further refused to comply with the same instructions from the general foreman. An investigation was properly held, the Claimant was found guilty of the charge, and dismissed from service.

Claimant argues that a prior Carrier memorandum assigned the type of work he: was instructed to perform to employees having different job titles, and that therefore, he was improperly assigned the work. The memorandum in question was advisory, having a measure of discretion to the foreman in charge of the responsibility covered. Even if Claimant had grounds to believe that he was being assigned work improperly, it is well recognized by this Board that the employee's duty in such situations is to comply with the directions first and grieve later. Second Division Award No. 5167 states clearly the position of this Board:
Form 1 Award No. ~~?!+
Page 2 Docket No. 9293
2-NRPC-FO-'82
"The correct procedure was for claimants to comply with (the
foreman's instructions and thereafter, if they desired to do
so, to test the validity through the orderly channels of the
grievance machinery. Any contrary procedure that would permit
each employee to determine whether or not a supervisor's
instructions are proper would make for chaos and cannot be
sanctioned."

Claimant further states that the job he was instructed to do had been previously performed, while the record indicates that he had no knowledge of this fact and that he had not even checked as to whether or not this was true before he refused to comply with the foreman's and general foreman's instructions. Assuming that Claimant's contention was correct, this Board has consistently held that it will not substitute its judgement for that for the hearing officer's, absent a clear showing of arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable action on the part of the hearing officer. The hearing officer was obviously present and able to observe the conduct and demeanor of all witnesses. This Board will not substitute its judgement for that of the hearing officer.

As to the Organization's claim that dismissal was inappropriate, it is clear that proven insubordination is a serious offense and will support discipline of dismissal. This Board has ruled in Award No. 3894:








                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

                  c


Byt--~C.~--
      osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Da ed at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of April, 1982.