(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 PARTIES 7b DISPUTE: ( Freight Handlers., Express and Station Employes



(1) Carrier failed to adhere to the Agreement between the Parties when, on March 19, 1980, Mr. 3. E. 14:ayo was assessed discipline of dismissal from Carrier's service, sad,

 (2) Carrier shall restore Mr. S. E. F.hayo to service with all rights unimpaired and compensate him for all tile lost commencing March 19, 1980.

 OPINION OF HOARD: The Claimant, Mr. S. E. 14:ayo, was hired on January 10,
March 4, 1980 the Claimant was working as s. Yard Clerk at Yard °A" inCincinnati, 7:00 AM to 3:00 PA.

 At approximately 8:25 AM on March 4, 1980 Terminal Trainmaster Rhoden specifically instructed Claimant Khayo to empty the waste baskets. Claimant Khayo advised the Terminal Trai·master that he would not perform this work. Claimant Khayo admitted his guilt as charged in the matter of refusing to empty the trash cans at Yard A.

 On March 4, 1980 Mr. Kayo was sent written notice to attend an investigation on Friday, March 7, 1980. He was charged with insubordination for refusing to comply with the instruction by Terminal Trainmaster Rhodes.

 Subsequent to a hearing on March 7, 1980s Claimant kayo was notified under date of March 19, 1980 that the discipline assessed vas dismissal from Carrier's serv
In a letter dated March 30, 1980, Mr. 14hayo's claim was submitted to the Carrier's Division Manager at Cincinnati. Division Manager's letter of April 7s 1980 denied the claim. This decision vas appealed to Carrier's Director of Labor Relations is letter dated May 2, 1980. Director of Labor Relations declined the claim in a letter dated June 18, 1980.

 The Claimant maintains that finding as employs "guilty" as charged does not, of and within itself, ,justify the assessment of the supreme penalty of dismissal.


The Claimant contends that the disobedience to the order to empty trash cans given by Trai.nmaster Rhoden was precipitated by the lack of knowledge concerning the rai Imayo. The Claimant testified that he was not aware that Trainmaster Rhoden was directly responsible for the supervision of all employee within the Consolidated Cincinnati Terminal area.

 At the time of the incident Claimant was under direct orders from the Yardmaster at Yard A to check Train Southwest #99 departing lard A. Mr. Imayo was faced with a specific order from his immediate supervisor when Trainmaster Rhoden ordered Claimant to empty the trash cans. The Claimant maintains that the order to perform janitor work, made in the face of impending fulfillment of order or proper. Further Trainmaster Rhodes made no attempt to make clear to Claimant the consequences of he was disobedient.

        Claimant Khayo testified as follows:


    "Q: Mr. Khayo, if you had known that a yard clerk can be told to clean. the yard office, would you have done so?


A: Yes, I would."

 The Claimant maintains that because of a sincere lack of understanding concerning orders issued was excessive*

 It is Carrier's position that this claim has not been handled in accordance with Rule 48 of the June 4, 1973 Clerk-Telegrapher Agreement end should be dismissed. The Claimant seeks relief for rage losses now which was never requested of the Carrier on the property. The Carrier maintains that when a claim is a departure from that offered on the property, the claim must be dismissed (Third Division Award Nos. 15753, 10067, 12790, 10695, 12178, sad 12352).
The Carrier asserts that the Claimant was aware of the fact that Trainmaster Rhodes was an Officer of the Company and direct orders given by him should have been followed. Whether the duties he was ordered to perform wen part of his assignment is immaterial. The Carrier maintains that as Haploye should follow orders and grieve later if he feels the instructions were unjustified (Third Division Award No. 21429).
Further, the Carrier contends that if Claimant was unaware of the duties required of him, he did not make this clear at the time and there is no evidence that m..i,."_+ inquired of the Traiamaster as to his responsibilities.
                    Award Number 23973 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-23856


The Carrier also maintains that the instructions given Claimant were not detrimental to his heal legitimate excuse for refusing to perform the cork. The penalty of dismissal in cases of an En, ploy or capricious.

 The essential facts in this dispute are not in dispute. The Claimant in this matter failed to ad relations principles. That is when an Employe is given a direct order, the Employe is "to work non and grieve later." The principle has been wall established in the railroad i 4886, 8712, 11447, 1528, 16074, 16286, 18563 20030a 20102 and 21890).

 In the instant matter Claimant admitted that he refused to obey a direct order. Furthermore the Board notes Claimant's short leassth of tenure (14 months). Under these circiastances, the Board concludes that the disciplinary action was supported by the record; therefore the Board declines the claim.

        FL`IDWOS: The Third Division of the Adjustnent Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties warred. oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employer within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 19341

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board bas jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTUST<= BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


BY
    Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27±h day of august 1922.