Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9222
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8989
 2-c8Nw-CM-' 82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada


Dispute: Claim 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 employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

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

Claimant, Jack Jalove, is a billwriter, who has worked for the Carrier since November 2, 1977, at its Proviso, Illinois, facility. On March 22, 1979, Claimant reported to work at 3:00 P.M. Between 3:30 and x+:00 P.M., he was sent to Spot Rip and reported to the foreman, who assigned him to drive a fork truck because of a manpower shortage. Shortly thereafter, Claimant told foreman he did not have to drive the fork truck, and he could go home if he wanted to. He did, however, drive the fork truck until 6:45 P.M. At that time, he was told to go down and open the switches. Claimant then went to speak to the Acting General Car Foreman, who wars exiting the machine shop. Claimant called the Acting General Foreman over and stated, "I am not going to drive a fork lift after lunch". Asked why, Claimant responded, "I am a billwriter". He was told he had to drive the fork truck because of a shortage of men. Claimant again said, "No". Claimant then proceeded to open the switch as instructed. Upon returning to the Foreman's office, the Acting General Foreman attempted to explain the manpower shortage and the fact he did not want to give any carman a hassle as far as his job is concerned. Claimant was told he was needed to drive the fork truck. He was then told to sit in the lunchroom. The Spot Rip Foreman was called, and together with the Acting General Foreman,
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 9222
 Docket No. 8989
 2-C&lVW-CM-' 82

 they approached Claimant. The Acting General Foreman again told Claimant he had to drive. Claimant said, "No". He was told he was being insubordinate and was, thereafter, pulled out of service.

 The investigation was held on March 30, 1979, as scheduled, and by letter of April 4, 1979, Claimant was advised of his dismissal from service.

 The Organization claims the Carrier has failed to prove the charge of insubordination. A direct order was never issued. Insubordination was assumed by the Acting General Foreman, but he could not be sure until Claimant's lunch period ended.

 The Board has reviewed the transcript, and we conclude the Claimant was given clear instructions to drive the fork truck. Claimant's refusals were multiple. We note that Claimant initiated conversation with the Acting General Foreman before he opened the switch. The assertion a direct order cannot be issued during a lunch period under such circumstances is without merit.

 We have examined the Board's well settled position that employes must comply with instructions and grieve later, except where a real safety hazard is involved. No such exception is suggested by the actions and statements of the Claimant.

 The Board finds sufficient evidence supporting Carrier's finding of insubordina
 tion. The Claimant simply did not want to follow instructions. There existed no law
 basis for his refusal. Instructions and directions addressed to employes are no
 less a direct order because they are not prefaced by "this is a direct order".
 The assignment of Claimant to perform the work was proper.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dat/d at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of June, 1982.