(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Colorado and Southern Railway Company

(1) The discipline assessed Trackman G. L. Bowling was without just and sufficient cause and bas disproven charges (System File C-12-76/Mb1-390).

 (2) Trackman G. L. Bowling be restored to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his personal record be cleared of the charges placed against him and he be reimbursed for all wage loss suffered until he is restored to service.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Board has carefully reviewed the chronology
 and substantive developments of this case.
 Recognizing that the efficient administration of a rail transportation
 system presupposes prompt and obedient adherence to safety rules and
 regulations, we scrutinized the record to determine if claimant's
 charged insubordination represented willful behavior, inconsistent
 with the disciplinary requirements of the carrier.

 While we do not condone claimant's apparently indifferent response to Supervisor Martinez's concern for strict safety rule observance we feel nevertheless that the testimony in the investigative transcript supports the reasonable conclusion that claimant made some minimal attempt, albeit somewhat unorthodox, to comply with the spirit if not the letter of Rule 17, Burlington Northern Safety Rules.
                    Docket Number b&1-22029


He clearly was under an obligation, of course, to apprise his supervisor that his work shoes wer He could have, at least, noted this situation on June 24, 1976, when he reported for work in low-cut dress leather shoes. That he did not do so is certainly not praiseworthy. We cannot expect supervisory personnel to divine employee intent by symbolic behavior, similarly with his failure to protect his job on June 25, 1976. While we find that claimant did not report to work on the aforesaid date, we believe that the Assistant Superintendent's instruction to Supervisor Martinez on June 24, 1976, to send claimant home because he wasn't wearing the proper footwear was sufficiently persuasive to claimant to dissuade him from reporting to work until he had the required work shoes. We do not feel that this absence was willful or blatantly calculated, but surely it was less than the reasonable norm.

 Hopefully, by this time, claimant's dismissal since July 30, 1976 will have indelibly impressed upon him the necessity for more communicative responsible behavior. This Board will not countenance insubordinate or willful acts. But the facts in this case support the finding that claimant made some attempt to wear other than cloth or canvas shoes on June 24, 1976 and remained away fry his assigned position on June 25, 1976, because of his construction of the supervisor's instruction to remain off the job until he had the required shoes.

 Accordingly, based on the record we will reinstate claimant to his prior position with unimpaired seniority but without back pay.

          FINDINGS: 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 within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
                    Award Number 21956 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-22029


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

 The Agreement was violated to the extent expressed in the opinion.

                          A W A R D


        Claim sustained to the extent expressed in the opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 15th day of March 1978.