Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The discipline assessed Section laborer G. R. Whitehead was unwarranted and without dust and sufficient cause (System File D-28-79/W-15-79)0

 (2) Section Laborer S. R. Whitehead shall be afforded the remedy prescribed is Rule 28(d)."

 OPINION OP BOARDS An investigation was held on May 8, 1979 to determine whether
 Claimant wan insubordinate when he failed to comply with the
 Roadmaeter's instructions as May 20 lg(9 to wear company safety glasses., while
 on duty at American Fork, Utah sad for his continued failure to comply with
 these instructions. Ha had been warned on April 23 sad 26 to wear these glasses.

 Based on the record developed at the trials, Claimant wan found guilty of the charges and suspended from service for eighteen (18) days. This disposition was appealed.

 In defense of his petitions Claimant argues that he was prejudged by Cazzier, since he was dismissed team service by the Roadmsater on May 2s, 1979. The investigation was held on May 8s, 1979 and the disciplinary decision was not rendered until May 14, 1979. He contends that his Company issued safety glasses were sipped and scarred while working on the fob sad he was forced to purchase his own industrial safety glasses in view of the unavailability of company Issued glasses. He avers that the eighteen (18) day suspension was arbitrary and capricious sad as abuse of
Carrier contends that Claimant was reprimanded on two (2) separate occasions parlor to the May 2, 19 argues that he was aware of the rules governing the wearing of company issued safety glasses and he consistently disregarded this mandatory workplace obligation on the several days he was admonished. It asserts that he was pointedly warned that he would be removed from services if he failed to observe this fundamental safety requirement and his removal was no surprise or an abuse of managerial authority.


In our review of this cases we agree with Carrier's position. Careful analysis of the investigative record does not indicate that Claimant was improperly removed from service on May 2.. 1979 or that it wen tantamount to dismissal, since he was explicitly advised that he wound be removed from service if he did not war his company issued safety glasses. He had been warned twice. In facts this question is mooted by the retroartivity of the
 penalty. _ _, _

 The record shams that he was remiss on May 2, 1979 when he did not comply with the Roadmeater's prior warnings and instructions and such conduct ; constitute* insubordination* Moreover we are not convinced that he was-compelled to purchase his own the property. The foremen had an extra poi; available but Claimant had not reported that his company issued safety glasses were impaired or for that matters requested n new issuance.

 In Third. Division Award 20030 which conceptually parallels this cases we stated in pertinent part that:

            "It is a recognized principle of arbitral law, and. . ' . '

        especially by this Boards that the duty of an employee is

        to obey a reasonable order; aady if he disagrees with such

        an order to weak redress through the grievance machinery of

        the Agreement. (See Awards 7921 5170, 4886, 8712, 158

        and 16286). There are not sufficient mitigating circumstances

        presented on this record to support s conclusion other than'

        the inescapable one that Claimant's conduct amounts to insub

        ordination."


        In the instant case, Claimant's refusal to wear company issued safety


glasses on May 2, 1979 notwithstanding taro prior warnings amounts to insubordination.end we are constrained to affirm Carrier's determination, Claimant was guilty of a serious offense., which potentially affects the safety of rail operations, and it should
        FIIIDEU3: the Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and ell the evidences finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;

                      Award Number 23515 Page 3

                      Docket Nianber MW-23473


That the Carrier and the Fnployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes xithiz the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That thin Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJtS2·iENT HOARD

                              By Order of Thud Division


ATTEST:
        Executive ecretary


Dated at Chicago ILlinoisj, this 29th day of January 1982·