(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated the Agreement at Baltimore, Maryland, when it suspended from service Mr. C. E. Wietacher, Extra Clerk, for thisrty (30) days, beginning February 4, 1978 through March 5, 1978, when he declined to physically
 check tracks, unaccompanied, to avoid jeopardy to his personal safety, and

 (2) Mr. Wietacher shall be compensated far all wage losses between February 4, 1978 and March 6, 1978, the period of suspension, and his record be cleared of charges in connection therewith.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was suspended for a period of thirty days
 for his refusal to check the yard tracks at Curtis Bay
 unless someone was assigned to accompany him on this mission. There is no
 question but that the instructions were clear, that they were understood by the
 Claimant, and that he refused to follow them unless someone went with him.
 The Claimant received his instructions first from the Assistant Chief Clerk and,
 to turn, from the Assistant Manager all with the threat of discipline if he did
 not comply.

 There is also no question but that, standing alone, the refusal to comply with instructions is subject to disciplinary action. An orderly process dictates that as aggrieved employs should obey the instructions and grieve later, however, is Award 22525 the additional element of safety hazard was raised wherein the award provided as follows:

The safety hazard alleged herein by the Claimant is the requirement to visit a yard to inspect tracks at 1:30 in the morning in a dark and alleged dangerous area unaccompanied by a fellow employs. The Carrier alleges that the area is safe and no such extra employs is involved.

 The Claimant, having failed to carry out the instructions of his supervisor, must carry the burden of proof to indicate why it would be dangerous to enter this area alone. The Claimant has pointed out that 85 employes had signed a document delivered to the Division Manager four months


prior to this incident pointing out unsafe working conditions at various locations including the area where the Claimant was to be sent.

 It was also pointed out that in 1974, there had been an injury to a fellow employe who was assaulted and robbed in this area. The Claimant pointed out that five days before his refusal. to enter the area unaccompanied, he had been dispatched to accompany a fellow employe who was to check the same area. The record indicates that because of the nature of these areas, that there had been a practice of sending two employes to check tracks is isolated areas but the record further shows that the Division Manager attempted to stop this practice by placing the following in the Assistant Chief Clerk's log book on October 7, 1977:

        "C. McAbee, per Division Manager. There is no area where it is unsafe to send a checker. If a clerk refuses, log the incident. Action will be taken. This is our instructions as of this period."


A reading of the record in its entirety indicates that there was certainly cause for the Claimant to be concerned for his safety if he followed the instructions given to him on the evening of the incident. Whether there is sufficient basis for his then refusing to comply with the instructions must be decided by taking into account all of the facts involved. Ea this regard, it is significant that there had been some incidents in these remote areas and that a substantial number of employes had complained about the danger in these areas. In weighing the factors in this matter, we are impressed that this was not an absolute refusal by the claimant, but rather one which was qualified. The Claimant was willing to enter the area, at least if there was the protection of two persons entering the area at the same time. We don't find here an absolute refusal on the part of the Claimant, however, the Claimant in refusing to follow an order does so at his own risk; namely, that of being able to establish clearly that a danger did exist. It is difficult to evaluate the real extent of the danger on the particular evening when the refusal was made, so that we cannot say that there was not a basis for discipline to be imposed by the Carrier.

 However, under all the factors involved including many of the uncertainties, it is clear to us that a thirty-day suspension is excessive even if the fears of the GLimant were unfounded. The Carrier has a duty under these circumstances to communicate with all the employes involved that it is going to enforce its change in policy with a complete explanation as to why it is satisfied that the danger which it once recognized by sending employes out in pairs no longer exists. Certainly there was enough is the way of extenuating factors which could give the Claimant some cause for concern. Under these circumstances, we find that any suspension in excess of three days is not warranted.
                      Award Number 23909 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-23778


        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 Employee 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; sad

        That the Agreement was violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim sustained is accordance with the Opinion.


                            NATIQdAL RAILROAD AWIISMNT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

By z:

        Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of June 1992.