( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO D1gP(Tfa:

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

"(a) Carrier violated the Agreement when it wrongfully suspended L. C. Marshall following an investigation held at Homewood, Illinois, May 3, 1976, and that

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate claimant Marshall at the rate of $47.04 per day, for April 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30; May 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1976, and his record cleared of all charges as a result of being held out of service pending investigation and the decision rendered on the alleged charge of insubordination April 23, 1976."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On April 23, 1976, Claimant -- a Stockman -- was
 instructed on three different occasions to assist
 another employe in the operation of an overhead crane. There is
 nothing to indicate that such orders were not issued by the appropriate
 supervisor or that the order 'to assist the crane operator was not
 clearly within the Claimant's duties. The first order was given while
 the Claimant was working at a desk; the Claimant did not engage the
 supervisor in eye contact at the time nor did he orally respond. Some
 time passed and the Claimant's supervisor was queried by the crane
 operator as to the assistance assured him, indicating that the Claimant
 had not reported. The supervisor sighted the Claimant on the floor
 above him in the stock area and again instructed him to assist the
 crane operator. The Claimant again did not respond, but did look
 directly at him during the issuance of such instructions. An hour and
 a half later, the crane operator informed the Claimant's supervisor that
 he was still without assistance. The supervisor located the Claimant
 and upon questioning as to why he had not followed instructions, the
 Claimant protested that two other employes could be assigned such work.
 According to the Carrier, the Claimant commenced berating his supervisor
 and further refused to work on the crane. At that point he was taken
 out of service.


The C1bimBfft contends: that the first he heard about the need to assist the crane operator was around 10:00 a.m. (the last time the Supervisor raised the matter); that he did not question the assignment; and that he was preparing to go to the crane when be was removed from service. The Organization raises a procedural question as a defense in this matter -- it objected to the charging supervisor being present in the hearing while testimony was being elicited from the Claimant. We find no error in the Rearing officer's decision to permit the supervisor to be present during such testimony. As to the merits of the case, only two witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing -- the Claimant and his supervisor. (Another witness was notified, but failed to appear.) While recognizing that it is not the Hoard's responsibility to reconcile conflicting testimony, we are compelled to conclude that a review of the records and the circumstances involved gives credence to the Carrier's version of events. The Claimant did not contend that the supervisor did not approach him twice prior to the 10:00 a.m. confrontation; he merely indicated the latter encounter was the first time he heard the supervisor. This oblique disclaimer, coupled with the apparent penchant of the Claimant not to respond when addressed, supports the Carrier's contention that the Claimant heard wh may have preferred not to work with the crane on that day, unless he was prepared to demonstrate why it was not properly within his range of duties (even then an "obey and grieve" action may have been proper) or that he was physically incapacitated, he was obliged to perform such work.

        We find no reason to upset the Carrier's discipline in this case.


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

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

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                  Award Number 22511 page 3

                  Docket Number CL-21974

                  A W A R D


        Claim is denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTtMT HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of September 1979.