(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

(1) The dismissal of Trackman B. G. Kilcrease for alleged violation of Carrier's Rules 176, 177 and 189 was without Just and sufficient cause and excessively harsh and disproportionate to the offense with which charged (System File B-1650/R-20691).

 (2) The Carrier shall return Claimant Kilcrease to service and accord him all the benefits and remedies prescribed within Agreement Rule 91 (6)."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On November 1, 1976, Claimant was advised of a
 formal investigation concerning asserted absence
 from duty and insubordination on October 29, 1976. Subsequent to the
 inves~:igation, he was dismissed from service.

 Our review of the entire record compels us to observe that Carrier presented substantial evidence to show that this Claimant did absent himself from duty without permission and that he was clearly insubordinate.

 We find that it was standard procedure at derailments for members of each gang to eat as a group. Nonetheless, this Claimant (without instructions or permission) departed the work site and drove into town for breakfast with another crew, which crew left the area before Claimant's crew, and his regular crew continued to work during this time.

 This unexplained absence by Claimant was further compounded by the fact that, instead of returning to the work site, he then rode further into town with a different crew in another truck, which was seeking gasoline. When this truck finally returned to the work site, the Claimant was found asleep in the back of the truck. He was awakened by his Foreman and questioned regarding his whereabouts.


During the ensuing discussions, the Claimant cursed and threatened the Foreman with bodily harm. He then requested to be released because he was sick. Although he was instructed to wait in one of the trucks until he could be transported to town, the Claimant further disrupted the operation by failing to remain in the truck; but instead, engaged in conversation with a trackman who was still working.

 Based upon our consideration of the entire record, we do not find that the discipline imposed was arbitrary, capricious and/or unreasonable. A Carrier certainly has a right to expect that an employe will see to his duties, rather than embarking upon quarrelsome and threatening conduct towar denied.

        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;

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: e"Xsew-e

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, LL7.inois, this 27th day of April 1979.