(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

(1) The dismissal of E. J. Engler was without just and sufficient cause and in violation of the Agreement /System File 112(37)/D-105382 E-306-18/

 (2) Mr. E. J. Engler shall be restored to service with seniority unimpaired and be allowed pay at the Assistant Foreman's rate for all time lost since his dismissal on April 22, 1974.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was suspended from service on April 22,
 1974 for allegedly refusing direct order of his foreman to return to his regular position as anchor wrench operator. Suspension was converted to dismissal on May 23, 1974, following hearing on May 7, 1974.

 Claimant was in Rail Laying Gang No. 53, which was laying rail on the Morganfield Branch near Nebo, Kentucky. On Friday, April 19, 1974, Claimant was permitted to work the position of Assistant Foreman in Gang No. 53. On this date Claimant was ordered to take five men and make a proper runoff at Bridge 379, located at M.P. 284.6. Claimant's foreman inspected this work at 5:30 P.M. that day, and found that the work had not been properly performed, and that the track was unsafe for the regular 25 MPH speed of trains. Claimant's foreman thereupon had to issue a "Slow Order" of 10 MPH.

 On Monday, April 22, 1974, Claimant's foreman told Claimant that his work on Friday, April 19 had be therefore he was relieving Claimant from the Assistant Foreman's position. Foreman directed Claimant to return to his regular assigned position as anchor wrench operator. Claimant refused to accept his foreman's instructions at least three times, once in the presence of another Machine Operator, who had been called over by the foreman to witness the insubordination of Claimant.

 The record taken as a whole, clearly indicates that Claimants work was not properly performed on Apr record also establishes that Claimant was guilty of insubordination in refusing to return to work as Anchor Wrench Operator on April 22, 1974.


Claimant argues that he was justified in refusing his foreman's direct order, because he believed th April 19 was satisfactory, and, moreover, that the foreman was attempting to violate the seniority p him to the position of Anchor Wrench Operator. In addition, Claimant argues that the penalty of discharge is too severe for his first offense of insubordination.

 The Board finds that it is not the Claimant's right to substitute his judgment for that of his forem Claimant truly believed that the foreman was violating the seniority provisions of the Agreement in making Machine Operator assignments, then the Claimant should have grieved such action, but not take it upon himself to be insubordinate. The rule of thumb here is, "Work now, grieve later." The work place is not a debating society, where employes may challenge the orders of action. Whenever employes refuse to follow a proper order of supervision, the Carrier is placed in a take steps to eliminate such insubordination, or else the insubordination will create havoc throughout the work gang. Consequently, it is well established that dismissal is not inappropriate in cases of insubordination. (Awards 20770, 20769, 2 16704, 16347, 16286, 16074, 15828, 14273, and 14067).



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

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and



        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1976.