Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11495
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11364
 88-2-87-2-4
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Ronald L. Miller when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Burlington Northern Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That in violation of the current Agreement, Electrician Helper K. D. Machholz was unjustly suspended from the service of the Burlington Northern. Railroad Company following an investigation held on December 3, 1985.

 2. That the investigation held on December 3, 1985 was not a fair and impartial investigation.

 3. That the notice of charge given Mr. Machholz and his representative prior to the subject investigation was indefinite and ambiguous and therefore this notice did not meet the specific and precise advance notice required by the Agreement.

 4. That the notice of discipline was procedurally incorrect in that the suspension period covered a period of forty (40) days, not the assessed thirty (30) days.

 5. That accordingly, the Burlington Northern Railroad be directed to set aside the discipline, remove any reference to it from Mr. Machholz's record and that it compensate him for any and all wages lost by him as the result of this suspension. In addition, any lost or adversely affected benefits such as vacation rights, helath,(sic) welfare and insurance benefits, or pension, Railroad Retirement and unemployment benefits be restored along with his seniority rights if affected.

 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 employees 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.
Form 1 Award No. 11495
 Page 2 Docket No. 11364
 88-2-87-2-4

 Before turning to the merits of this case, certain procedural issues must be addressed. First, the Organization contends that the notice of charge given to the Claimant was "indefinite" and "ambiguous." That notice states in part:

On its face, the notice of charge issued to Claimant provides sufficient information concerning the circumstances under inquiry, specifically, the charge of insubordination and failure to comply with instructions on November 15, 1985. A careful review of the record, especially testimony at the investigative hearing, indicates that Claimant knew of the event associated with the charge and prepared a defense against the charge.

 Second, the Organization contends that the notice of discipline was incorrect in that the suspension covered a period of forty (40) days, not the assessed thirty (30) days. The Notice states in part:

The notice does not specifically state calendar or work day, only thirty (30) days. Nevertheless, the notice does specify the period during which the suspension was to be served; that period included thirty (30) days which the Claimant normally would have worked and ten (10) days which the Claimant normally would have observed as rest days. This notice should have stated thirty (30) work days. Notwithstanding the omission, the intent is clear. This defect is not significant and cannot be a basis for setting aside the disciplinary action.

 Third, the Organization contends that the Investigating Officer refused to allow relevant testimony. A careful review of the record indicates that the Investigating Officer properly focused the hearing on the period between the beginning of the work shift and the end of the encounter between the supervisor and Claimant in the B-34 area. This is the period during which the Claimant is charged with engaging in insubordinate conduct. He was not denied an opportunity to present testimony relevant to this time period. On a related matter, it was not necessary for the Carrier to call the crane operator as a witness. If the Organization believed that the operator's testimony would have contributed significant information, it had the right and opportunity to call him as a witness. The Organization chose not to do so.
 Form 1 Award No. 11495
 Page 3 Docket No. 11364
 88-2-87-2-4

 Moving to the merits of this case, there is substantial evidence from which to conclude that Claimant engaged in insubordinate conduct on November 15, 1985. When given clear instructions to perform a specific task, Claimant stated his intention to go home. Although he contends that he made the statement in the context of not feeling well, the Claimant did not indicate his ill health to the supervisor:






The Claimant was repeatedly instructed to perform specific duties and he repeated his intention to go home later in the shift. The Claimant's conduct was argumentative and uncooperative without justification.

 Subsequently, the Claimant proceeded to the B-34 area. Within approximately ten (10) minutes of the first incident, the supervisor and another foreman found Claimant seated at a lunch table when there was work to perform.

 The record of this case does not show that Claimant specifically refused to perform assigned work. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Claimant was unreasonably argumentative and that he delayed without good cause in carrying out his supervisor's instruction.

 There is no basis in the record for this Board to reduce the discipline assigned by the Carrier.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: (~z 0
 Nancy J.~er - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1988.