( Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Burlington Northern System Board of

1. Carrier violated the Working Agreement with an effective date of March 3, 1970, between the parties hereto, when on the 28th day of January, 1972, it suspended Burns Booker, Jr. from his regular assignment of Janitor, Job :lumber
2. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties hereto when on February 18, 1972, it discharged Burns Booker, Jr.

 3. Carrier shall restore Burns Booker, Jr. to service with seniority rights unimpaired, showing exoneration, including the right to return to his former position or any position bulletined during his absence and be reimbursed for any and all loss of compensation incurred, including any losses suffer a result of the cancellation of Group Policy Contract 23000 and the life and dismemberment insurance, which protection terminated on date of dismissal.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization asserts a procedural deficiency,
 allegedly prejudicial to Claimant. The docket
 shows that the individual who rendered the decision and assessed the
 penalty was not physically present at the investigation. Claimant raised
 this procedural issue during the handling of the matter on the prop
 erty.

 In Award 20099, we noted conflicting authority on the subject of meaningful determinations being rendered by an individual other than the He:rina Officer. In our Award 20164 we noted that under certain circumstances, it may well be that a Claimat's procedural rights require that as individual who was present at the Investigation-404--_ observed the demeanor, actions, etc* of the witnesses personally resolve questions of credibility.
                  Docket Number CL-?0303


fiovever, in this dispute, similar to our determination in Award 2o164, we :eel that any possible procedural error was nor prejudicial to Cla,imaat due to his own admis
Claimant was charged with insubordination and failure to follow instruction from proper authority.

 Claimant was told to alter his priority of performing cleaning duties, and was advised to clean the General Yardmaster's office at a certain hour.

 Although Claimant made numerous contentions and offered various reasons for his actions, at the investigation he conceded that he received a direct order to clean the General Yardmaster's office, and he concedes that he refused to comply. It is undisputed that he read, at the time of the which requires employees to follow instructions from proper authority, and there can be no serious q
Resolving any possible procedural deficiencies in favor of Claimant, the Board is of the view that substantial and credible evidence was presented at the investigation, including Claimant's own statements, to support the charges. We will not disturb the assessed penalty absent a showing that the Carrier's decision was so unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory so as to amount to an abuse of discretion. We are unable to make such a finding in this case.

        The claim will be denied.


        FIYDLNG&: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Divison of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
        That the Agreement was not violated.

                  Award Nurber ?Ci?9 ?age 3

                  Docket Number CL-?0303

                  W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAIL20AD A.DJUST1,E'NT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: 441,

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of March 19?4,