Rodney E. Dennis, Referee


(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The thirty day suspension imposed upon Motor Truck Operator T. L. Hannon for alleged insubordination was without ,just and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to such a charge (System File TRRA 1978-34).

 (2) Motor Truck Operator T. L. Hannon shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant T. L. Hannon is a Motor Truck Operator assigned to
 a gang working at Wiggins 2 Yard, North End. He was under
 the supervision of Track Foreman R. W. Hollis. At about 10:30 a.m..on August 10,
 1978, the gang was visited by Assistant Track Supervisor C. F. Boyer.. who ob
 served that the members of the gang were not wearing their safety helmets. Mr .
 Boyer addressed the foreman and the gang and told them to wear their hats, as
 required. He also stated that someone would get pulled out of service if the
 men did not wear their hats. While Boyer was talking, the men put on their hats.

 At 3:30 p.m. on the same day, Track Supervisor Donald Stogner also visited the gang. He noticed that claimant was not wearing his safety helmet. He thereupon told Foreman Hollis to tell claimant that he was out of service for insubordination and failing to wear his safety helmet.

 A hearing was held in the matter on August 17, 1978. Claimant was found guilty and by letter dated September 5, 1978, he was notified that he had been assessed a 30-day suspension and that he could return to work on Monday, September 11, 1978. Claimant grieved the suspension. It has been denied at each step of the procedure and submitted to this Board for resolution.

 The Organization does not deny that claimant was not wearing his hard hat when Stogner visited the gang. It does argue, however, that claimant's hard hat was defective and that Carrier's action of taking claimant out of service for such an incid of Rule 24(a).

        Rule 24(a) reads in pertinent part as follows:


        "A. An employe whose application has been approved will not be suspended or dismissed without being given a fair and impartial hearing except that if the offense is considered sufficiently serious, the employe may be suspended pending the hearing and decision."

                    Award Number 23412 Page 2

                    Docket Number NW-23244


Carrier argues that claimant disobeyed an order to wear his hat. His failure to wear it is an act of insubordination. As such, it is serious offense and there is ample justification for immediate suspension and a subsequent 30-day suspension
This Board has thoroughly reviewed the record of this case. That record does not fully support the actions of the Carrier---specifically, Carrier's action of immedia hat.

 It is apparent from the record of this case that all employes of the gang, including the foreman, were not wearing hats at 10:30 a.m. on the day in question. It is also clear from the record that the foreman did not order the claimant to put on his hat during the afternoon. He apparently allowed claimant to work wi clearly reveals that he told the men to wear their hats or to keep them close by if their duties made it difficult for them to keep their hats on their heads.

 Enforcement of the requirement that employes wear their safety helmets was lax at best. Clearly, the men were allowed by the foreman to work without their hats when company officials were not around. Carrier cannot allow such a situation to exist end expect severe discipline for not wearing a hard hat to be upheld by this Board. In the instant case, Carrier suspended claimant on the spot for not wearing his hard hat. He was subsequently charged with insubordination. This Board is of the opinion that Carrier's action of suspension was arbitrary and Schedule Agreement.

 We see no rational reason for the immediate suspension of claimant in this case. This Board has rendered numerous decisions involving the interpretation of this clause an employe may be' suspended, pending a hearing. Third Division Award 21447 (Referee ZUm88) is particularly appropriate here. In that case, ,just as here, Carrier argued that since an employe can be discharged for insubordination, such an offense is sufficiently
This Board has no disagreement with the concept that insubordination may be grounds for discharge. That is not germane: What is important is whether, under the circumstances present in this dispute, Carrier was justified in suspending claima wearing a hard hat and alleged insubordination. We think not.

 This Division, as well as others of this Board, have required that before an employe can be removed from service without a hearing, under rules such as 24(a), it must be determined that his continued presence on the property would endanger the performance of work, or disrupt the administration of discipline. We see no such results in this case.
                    Award Number 23412 pie 3

                    Docket Number bbl-23244


In arguing that since claimant was charged with insubordination, it had a right to suspend him prior to a hearing, Carrier submitted-numerous awards in support of its position. A review of those awards reveals that claimants in those cases were blatantly insubordinate and did, in fact, refuse to obey a direct orde
It was not proven on the record that claimant disobeyed a direct order or that when ordered, refused to wear his hat. What claimant did in this case was violate a rule that required him to wear his hard hat while on the job. A violation of a rule such as this cannot be construed as insubordination in the normal every alleged rule infraction could also carry the charge of insubordination. That is not what is meant by insubordination in labor relations.

 In the final analysis, what claimant is guilty of is failure'to wear his hard hat on the job. This is a requirement about which ail employes are aware. The infraction is justification for discipline and this Board has no quarrel with Carrier's position on this point. We do, however, find the manner in which Carrier assessed its penalty to be in error.

 It is the opinion of this Board that Carrier erred when it took claimant out of service without a hearing. We are therefore ordering that claimant be reimbursed for all lost wages from August 10, 1978, to September 5, 1978, the date of issuance of Carrier's decision in this case. The time off from September 5, to September 10, 1978, shall remain as a suspension for failure to wear the safety offense. He put his safety in jeopardy, as well as violated an established rule. Any further infraction of this type will undoubtedly lead to more severe discipline.

        FILINGS: 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 anployes 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.

                    Award Number 23412 page 4

                    Docket Number bbl-23244

                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the opinion.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD AWUS24ENT BOARD


        ., By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago,, Illinois, this 3rd day of November 1981.

    < j


J j~

        I.