(Alois S. Golombowski PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of
 the National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my inten
 tion to file an ex parte submission on November 1, 1974, covering an un
 adjusted dispute between Alois Golombowski and Chicago and North Western
 Railway Co., Wisconsin Division, involving the question:

OPINION OF BOARD: On August 7, 1971, Claimant was chief clerk on the
 midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift at National Yard, Mil
 waukee. Upon coming on duty he was advised by Yard Clerk Rummel that
 there was a note on his desk. Claimant read the note and threw it into
 the wastebasket. This note contained typed instructions from Claimant's
 superior, Trainmaster Lundell, for Claimant to have the yard clerk per
 form certain clean up work at two specific locations. In fact, such work
 was not performed, Claimant having instructed the Yard Clerk to make the
 yard check and do nothing else. On August 9, Claimant was duly notified
 to report for investigation on August 12, on a charge of insubordination
 on August 7, for failure to comply with the order of Trainmaster Lundell.
 Subsequent to such investigation, Claimant was dismissed effective as of
 August 9, 1971.

 The above facts, although summarized here for brevity, were fully testified to during the courae of the investigation. Claimant has a record of service of 27 years duration. His statement of claim asserts "wrongful discharge beginning on August 9, 1971, with loss of all seniority and other rights, includ
Initially, the Carrier contends that there is a variance in language between the Notice of Intent and the Statement of Claim in that the latter has been expanded to include demands for "reinstatement", "insurance premiums" and a "new hearing". As to "reinstatement", under the express language of Rule 22(c) of the Agreement, this is implicit in the claim of wrongful discharge, if sustained. Accordingly, this objection is not sustained. As to t hearing, the Carrier's objection is well founded. There is no existing rile in the Agreement between the parties to support such demands. The Board is therefore without authority to grant such claims and has so held in numerous past decisions. Accordingly, that portion of Claimant's Statement of Claim is dismissed.




1) Defective notice of hearing. A clear reading of the Notice demonstrates that this objection is without merit. The Notice complied fully with the provisi language as to the precise nature of the charge against Claimant.

 2) The fairness of the investigation. We have carefully reviewed the entire transcript an It is amply clear that the hearing was fairly and properly conducted in full compliance with the Rules. Proper questions were put and answers obtained. Claimant was represe bring forth all witnesses he desired. Nor can we reach any adverse conclusion by reason of the appro The record of the investigation speaks for itself and fully demonstrates its propriety and fairness to Claimant. Accordingly, this objection is not sustained.

 We come now to the merits of this case, in connection with which Petitioner presents the following issues:

 1) The adequacy of the instructions. Although there was some variance in the method by which the instructions were delivered to Claimant, the evidence adduced at the hearing is conclusive that a typed note containing Trainmaster Lundell's name, was in fact delivered to Claimant. Therefore, this objection is not sustained.

 2) The asserted failure to bulletin the Yard Clerk's change of duties. This contention is entirely without merit and is irrelevant to the charge of insubordination. Claimant may have been entitled to raise this claim as a grievance under the provisions of the Agreement, but he could not abritrarily refuse to comply with a proper order from one acknowledged to be his superior in authority.

 This principle is well established in prior Awards of this Board. See Award Nos. 16744 (Friedman), 16286 (Devine), 16074 (Perelson) and 20030 (Eischen).

 Upon the full record of this case, and particularly upon the testimony fairly and fully presente that Claimant refused to comply with a proper order of his superior. It is a recognized principle, supported by many past precedents in this Division, (some of which are cited above) that an employee has the duty of obeying a reasonable order. In fact, Claimant failed completely to refute these charges or to offer any explanation for his arbitrary conduct, other than some vague references to "family problems" and to a "misunderstanding".


      On this record, therefore, and the evidence adduced, no mitigating circumstances are presented to su that Claimant's conduct constituted insubordination, pure and simple. As a matter of long standing policy, amply supported by past precedents,and under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Hoard will not substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier in evaluating such evidence. This is particularly true where substantial probative evidence is presented in the record supporting the charge against Claimant.


      See Award Nos. 6387 (Lieberman) Second Division, 19487 (Brent), 17914 (auinn) and 15574 (Ives).


      Finally, whereas, the penalty of dismissal is severe, particularly in view of Claimant's 27 ;ears of service, there :s substantial evidence in the record, particularly his personal. disciplinary record, to support the imposition of the discipline of dismissal based on insubordination. The action of the Carrier in this case, therefore, cannot be deemed arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.


      See Award Nos. 18362 (Ritter), 20030 (Eischen), 0189 (Sickles), 20651 (Quinn), 5813 (Stark) Second Division and l9698 (Rubenstein).


      FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, after giving the

      parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon

      the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


      That the Carrier and the E:=ployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning cf the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;


      That this Division of the,Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute iaA:1aed herein; e^.d


            That tee Agreement was not violated.


                          A W A R D


            Claim denied.


                            riATIOM.L RAILR= ADJLJ"T.fNT HOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


      ATTEST: lI,I~ I

            Executive Secret


      Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July 1975.


I,