(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company

(1) The dismissal of Track Repairmen Raymond Easley, John Washington, David McLeod, Warren Russell, William Dyess, Steven Dahl, B. M. Moseley, Bobby Rogers, Richard Greer, Jr. and William Dexter was without just or sufficient cause and was arbitrarily and capriciously imposed (System File 1-17 (26) (77)/D-106794 E-306-14).

 (2) Each of the claimants shall be restored to service with seniority rights unimpaired and with pay for time lost in conformance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Agreement role 27(f)."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On the morning of Friday, April 22, 1977, each of
 the Claimants walked off the job in defiance of
 their Foreman's instructions to remain and work. It was raining that
 day-' nd during a pre-work assembly the men wrongly concluded that
 they had the right under their collective bargaining agreement to
 decide for themselves whether or not to work in the rain. They took
 a straw poll and voted not to work but to go home. Foreman Henderson
 tried unsuccessfully to dissuade them from their announced intent to
 leave the property. He then telephoned Roadmaster Rogers and reported
 the situation. At Rogers' direction Henderson again told the men
 they had no right to walk off the job because of rain and advised
 that if they did so they should not come back to work on Monday.
 In the face of that advice Claimants nonetheless walked off en masse,
 with Foremen Henderson and Ward continuing to remind them that they
 were exposing themselves to disciplinary action and possible termination.

 Claimants were terminated for their action and subsequently afforded an investigation pursuant to Rule 27 of the Agreement. Following the investigation the terminations were upheld and the instant claim was initiated and appealed through the grievance machinery to our Board. It is important to note that of the ten (10)
 1,


original Claimants named supra, only six (6) remain properly before us because Claimants Easley, Washington, Russell and Greer, Jr.-all accepted leniency reinstatements without back pay in return for withdrawing their claim for time lost due to the disciplinary action.

 There was no procedural impropriety in the disciplinary action and the only questions before us go to culpability and appropriateness of penalty. After reviewing all the facts of record we are persuaded that Claimants wilfully engaged in unjustified insubordination on April 22, 1977. They were disabused of their incorrect notion that they had a contract right to decide for themselves whether to work in the rain the job and warned that discipline would follow if they did not obey. Yet they persisted in their refusal to work. An employe who knowingly disobeys reasonable instructions from an authorized supervisor exposes himself to disciplinary action unless he can prove justification for his conduct. Apprehension of imminent physical harm is one such recognized justification, but these employes have fallen far short of proving that situation on this record. On the facts before us there is no doubt that they are vulnerable to disciplinary action by Carrier. Nor is Claimant McLeod any less culpable even though he later in the day visited his dentist. Lie, like the others, reported for work but then refused to work in the rain in direct contravention

 of orders from supervision..

 Although persuaded of their guilt, we are not convinced that these men are incorrigible malingerers. We note that there was no element of hostility or belligerence in their action. Certainly we do not condone their behavior but we are of the opinion that they deserve a last chance to prove that they can learn from this experience. Accordingly, we find that suspension without pay rather than outright termination is the appropriate penalty. We shall direct Carrier to return Claimants to service without back pay.

 FINDINGS; The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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 Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
                            i


                    Award Number 22641 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-22669


                                                        i


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and y,
 That the penalty of dismissal was too severe in the circumstances.

                    A W A R D


        Part 1 of claim is denied.


        Part 2 of claim is sustained to the extent indicated in

the Opinion.,

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ,r&~
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1979.