Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9858
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9948
 2-MP-FO-'84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Hyman Cohere when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood o f Firemen and Oilers
 ( System Council #f11, AFL-CIO
 Parties to Dispute: (
 ( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
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 employes 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.


After an investigation which was held on October 20, 1981, Laborer Ronald Hall, the Claimant, was dismissed from service due to his failure on September 30, 1981 to comply with his Foreman's instruction to remove headphones while ,performin< his duties and being quarrelsome to the General Foreman when he engaged in an argument concerning the instruction to remove the headphones. The Claimant had been employed by the Carrier since 1972.
 Form 1 Award No. 9858
 Page 2 Docket No. 9948
 2-MP-FO-'84
The Organization contends that the Claimant fully intended to comply with his Foreman's instruction but since there were several Supervisors who issued orders to the Claimant, "almost simultaneously", he was in affect, confused and displayed some hesitation as to which order he would first comply with. Moreover, the Organization contends that the "responses" of the Claimant to the General Foreman "are***not inappropriate in an industrial setting", given "the norms in such a setting and the use of shop talk".
After carefully examining the evidence in the record, the Board finds that the Claimant reported to his work area on September 30, 1981 with headphones attached to a radio and refused to remove them when he was instructed to do so by his Foreman. Indeed, when the Claimant was brought to the office of the General Foreman he was again instructed to remove the headphones. Not only did the Claimant again refuse to remove the headphones, but he became argumentative and loud. The failure to follow a supervisor's instructions has an additional dimension in this case which reinforces the gravity of the offense. It is the Carrier's responsibility to ensure safety in the work area. The wearing of headphones attached to a radio by an employee is a safety hazard not only to the Claimant himself but also to the employees in the area. Thus, by refusing to remove the headphones the Claimant failed to comply with instructions relating to safety which is of paramount concern in the work place.
In addition, a review of the Claimant's employment record indicates two (2) conferences and a thirty (30) day deferred suspension due to his failure to comply with rules or instructions.
However, the Board has concluded that in light of the offense committed on September 30, 1981 and in light of his work history, the penalty of dismissal is excessive. This is not to minimize the seriousness of the Claimant's conduct on September 30, 1981 and to point out that if he does not change his attitude and conduct, notwithstanding his more than eight (8) years of service, the only recourse will be dismissal.
Accordingly, the Board has concluded that the Claimant is to be reinstated with seniorty unimpaired but without pay or other benefits for time lost.







Attest:
      Nancy J. L~ er ecutive secretary


                                                          140


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of April, 1984