Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11560
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11407
 88-2-87-2-79
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That as a result of an investigation held on March 25, 1986 Carman. M. Sage was suspended from service for a period of two (2) days. Said suspension of Carman Sage is arbitrary, capricious, unfair, unjust, unreasonable, petty, contemptible, frivolous, ridiculous, and in violation of Rule 20 of the current working Agreement.

 2. That the Belt Railway Company of Chicago be ordered to remove the two (2) day suspension from Carman M. Sage's record.

 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.

As a result of charges dated March 19, 1986, Investigation held on March 25, 1986 and by notice dated April 2, 1986, Claimant, a car inspector with approximately seven and one-half years of service, was assessed a two day, suspension (which coincided with his rest days) for allegedly becoming argumentative when instructed to inspect a train.

 Clearly, it is well recognized that the workplace is not a debating society and a supervisor's instructions must be followed. Further, abusive or threatening conduct towards a supervisor requires discipline. Similarly, insubordination has no function in the workplace and if an instruction by a supervisor is questioned, the time-tested axiom of "obey now, grieve later"
 Form 1 Award No. 11560
 Page 2 Docket No. 11407
 88-2-87-2-79

 must be followed. See e.g., Second Division Awards 9074, 7643. On the other VAP
 hand, we are also bound by the principle that the Carrier has the burden of
 supporting its charge by substantial evidence in the record.
 We are satisfied that the Carrier has not supported its specific
 charge by substantial evidence in the record in this case. First, Claimant
 was specifically charged with "becoming argumentative." That charge estab
 lishes the Carrier's burden. The essence of the Carrier's case, however, is
 that Claimant was insubordinate since he did not immediately follow the
 Assistant Car Foreman's instruction. As asserted in the Carrier's submission,
 "Claimant: 1) failed to promptly follow instructions, 2) became argumentative,
 and, 3) attempted to initiate a Union grievance during his tour of duty."
 But, Claimant was not charged with insubordination or improperly initiating a
 grievance. Again, he was only charged with becoming argumentative. Indeed,
 the record establishes that Claimant performed the instruction given to him by
 the Assistant Car Foreman. Because Claimant was not charged with insubordin
 ation or improperly initiating a grievance, the fact that he performed the
 instruction after calling the Trainmaster cannot be used to deny the Claim.
 For the same reasons, the Awards cited to us by the Carrier (Second Division
 Awards 9873, 9074, 8580, 7643, 7193, 7128, 6387; Third Division Awards 25126,
 22836, 21890) are not determinative since those Awards concern specific alle
 gations of insubordination or failure to follow instructions.
 Second, with respect to Claimant's alleged argumentative conduct,
 the Assistant Car Foreman's testimony shows that Claimant asserted that the
 assignment to the East Departure Yard violated his contractual rights. His
 conclusion that Claimant was argumentative was because Claimant stated that he
 was "...violating his seniority rights ...and he went over my head to the
 Trainmaster." At best, Claimant's conduct was a statement to him that he
 believed the instruction was in error. While we disagree with the Organiza
 tion that argumentative conduct is not prohibited by the Carrier's rules
 ("argumentative" is synonymous with "contentious", which is defined as
 "quarrelsome", which is specifically prohibited by Carrier Rule J), we do not
 believe that, without more, a good faith statement by an employee to his super
 visor concerning the validity of an instruction is tantamount to argumentative
 conduct. While employees are required to follow instructions and are further
 required to grieve those instructions if they believe those instructions are
 issued without proper authority, we can find nothing in the Carrier's rules
 that prohibits an employee from telling a supervisor that he believes a given
 instruction is erroneous. The Assistant Car Foreman's testimony shows that
 Claimant was disciplined because he complained about the validity of the in
 struction. We do not believe that substantial evidence supports a conclusion
 that the level of complaint by the Claimant rose sufficently above that to be
 considered argumentative.

 In light of the above, we do not address the other arguments raised by the Organization.
 Form 1 Award No. 11560
 Page 3 Docket No. 11407
 88-2-87-2-79




                              By Order of Second Division


Attest: _ _
 Nancy J.~ r - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 1988.