(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company ( (Pacific Lines)

(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the current Clerks' Agreement when it summarily and unconscionably dismissed Mr. A. F. Henninger from service following investigation at which the charge brought against him was not proved; and,

 (b) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company shall now be required to reinstate Mr. Henninger to service with all rights of seniority, health and welfare, and vacation unimpaired and that he be compensated a days' pay at the rate of Agent at Newark for each and every day, Monday through Friday that he is withheld from service beginning January 5, 1978, and continuing until such time as he is restored to service including any overtime earnings to which he would otherwise have been entitled.

 OPINION OF BOARD= Claimant, A. F. Henninger, after formal investigation,
 was dismissed from service for alleged insubordination,
 on January 5, 1978. On February 3, 1978, Claimant was reinstated to service,
 on a leniency basis, but without compensation for time lost. In all, he was
 out of service a total of twenty-two days.

 Carrier contends that Claimant failed to follow a -verbal order given by Assistant Terminal Agent M. B. Dalton concerning input of the OFC Report to the computer. In its view, Claimant's failure to comply with Dalton's direction warranted the discipline imposed, pursuant to Rule 801 of the Agreement between the parties. The Organization, on the other hand, insists that Claimant is not guilty of insubordination.





Carrier has the burden of establishing that Claimant is guilty of violating the Rule. Carrier must prove that Claimant was insubordinate on January 5, 1978.

 A thorough analysis of the record of the investigation, as well as the submissions to this Board, convince us that Carrier has failed to meet that burden here. That is, Carrier has failed to prove the necessary components of insubordination. For example, Carrier did not establish that Claimant refused to comply with a direct order from his supervisor. Similarly, Carrier failed to prove that Henninger was placed on notice or informed that his behavior was potentially insubordinate.

 In sum, we are convinced that Claimant did not, at any time, flout authority or purposely defy an "order." If he is guilty of anything, it is a mistake as to the choice of work priorities. This is not insubordination in any sense of the Claimant shall be compensated in accordance with Rule 52 of the parties' Agreement.

        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 Employee 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 violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division-_

                            ,_


ATTEST: ~- s.C
 Executive Secretary
 i

                                        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April 1980. -~ _