STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Carrier did not violate the agreement with the Brother
 hood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks as alleged,
 when it dismissed Mr. W. M. Murray, Yard Clerk, Atlanta, Georgia, from the
 service of the Carrier for cause on August 29, 1978.

 Since the agreement was not violated, Mr. Murray is not entitled to eight hours' pay at the proper pro rata rate for Tuesday, August 29, 1978, and each work day thereafter on a Monday through Friday daily basis, as claimed in his behalf by the Clerks' Organization."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant Walter M. Murray, Yard Clerk, was notified by
 letter dated August 29, 1978 from Carrier's Agent Terminal
 Control that:




                            Agent Terminal Control"


On September 2, 1978 the Division Chairman requested that a hearing be held in connection with Claimant's dismissal. An investigation took place on September 8, 1978 and on September 11, 1978 the Superintendent informed Claimant in writing "that your termination will not be modified or revoked".

 With respect to the August 24th incident Assistant Agent Morrow stated at the investigation that he twice asked Claimant to teletype the list, that Claimant did not do so, and after the second direction Claimant said that he was sick and left the position well before his shift was over. The
 _rc: is clear that Claimant did not teletype the list, and at the investigation Claimant's response
                      Award Nr~7.hc a~_

                    Docket ~v .c . · ~2 ' Page 2


was not based ipon Being sick. ?ather d'~Lmant stated:

        Fi"ad headache--it ,·aan'`_ enou,5r to keep me off work, but it was just there and i.f yc: dea'. -vith person like Larry Morrow every day. Its just stuff built up ...."


Claimant went on to say that his ;spervisor nags him, and

        "but I need a vacation from the job an,,rway. I need to get away.. You stay on the Job evervday doing the same thing everyday and things just pile up and pile up on you. I just need to get off. Just to forget about the iob and get my mind clear .. ..It builds up sooner or later an- you just can't hold it in."


Claimant also stated that he dial not take medication, and added to his prior explanation that:

        "It was same thing, well I felt I just had to go at that time. I don't believe in violence. I don't believe in it whatsoever, but I thought I might, would have resorted to violence if I just sat there. If I had sat there ten minutes longer. I mean everybody get like that every now and then."


Claiaant additionally stated that the job was boring and he had a need to get away.

 Assistant Agent Morrow also said that in a telephone call to him on August 25th at the property Claimant, calling from the outside, said that the "reason he didn't come to work (on August 25th-add. by Bd.) was that he would have kicked imy ass, and that all I was was bullshit". Claimant, at the investigation, in response to the question "Did you threaten to kick his ass?" responded "I might have said that" and then .nt on to explain

        "but see, it is like this. What's said mar. to man is said man to man. I mean is it not. I was sparked up. I wasn't on company property. I was at home calling on the telephone. I was talking to him, him alone. Southern Railway didn't have anything to do with that. What I said to him was man to man."


These explanations establish that Claimant refused to take orders, felt that he could leave work anytimg he determined to do so, and considered himself free to say anything he had on his mind to the Supervisor in whatever manner he saw fit. In view of the abundant evidence in the record that Claimant failed to follow his Supervisor's instructions and abandoned his position on August 24th and threatened his Supervisor in August 25th, ample evidence of disinterest in his job and disrespect for both his position and Supervisory authority, there is no need to consider whether the charge of failing to appear for investigation on August 29th was a proper one. Failure
                    Award Number 23475

                    Docket Number CL-23278 Page 3


to follow directions, job abandonment, and the threat, separately or together are sufficient basis for discipline. A review of the entire record establishes that Claimant received a fair and impartial hearing and that there is substantial evidence to sustain Carrier's decision to discipline Claimant. Given the seriousness of the violations and claimant's poor record over a relatively short job tenure Carrier's decision to terminate claimant was reasonable.

 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;

 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


        Carrier's position sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of December 1981.