(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES 1U DISPUTE:

STATMENT OF CLAI4t: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Trackman. We Re Cooley,, Re G. ConwayR G. 0. Deaner, A. Everette., Jr... D. L. Hasden, H. L. Hazdiag, T. D. Harris, W. Henson., A. L. Harvey, B. J. Hopkins, J. B. Jackson, J. C. Johnson, I. W. Jones, R. L. Jones, L. E. Leaphedrt, C. Meaboa, Jr., S. L. Moors, C. Parker, B. W. Pilgrim. G. Wheeler, D. R. Walls sad L. White for alleged 'failure to comply with instructions to report for work on System Gang (i01 on March 3 sad k, 1979 and violation of General Rule B' was without just and sufficient cause sad in violation of the Agreement (Carrier's File S 31Q'-281).
(2) The claimants shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered , including any overtime worked by System Rail Gang 6801 beginning March 5, 1979 and Trackman W. R. Cooley., T. D. Harris, S. L. Moors, L. White sad R. L. Jones shall be reinstated with seniority and ail other rights unimpaired."

 OPINION OF HOARD: The twenty-two Claimants herein, all Trackman, were
 relieved of their duties on March 5, 1979 "Pending investigation far (their) failure to comply with instructions `,a report for rock on system Rail Gang 6801 on March 3 sad 4, 1979"· 9n investigation was held on March 13s 1979 "to develop farts sad place responsibility, if any, in connection" therewith. The Claimants were 19s 1979.
A review of the record before this Hoard establishes that Claimants were notified by supervision that they were to report for duty on March 3 sad 4, 1979, and that they failed to do so. The organization contends that the direction to work on those days violated a November 30, 1978 Letter of Agreement between the Carrier and the Organization concerning a shift in rest days. Under this position Claimants should have followed the time honored, widely accepted doctrine of work now-grieve later. Instead their massive defection from supervisory instructions constituted an extra= form of insuborlimtioa. There was substantial evidence to sustain the Carrier's decision to discipline Claimants. As seventeen of the Claimants were reinstated on a leniency basis, and another who ass probationary was re-employed by the Carrier the issue of penalty is moot. With respect to the four remaining Claimants the penalty of dismissal was reasonable.
                    Docket Number MW-23702


FINDINGS:. The Third-Division of the Adjustment Board-, upon the whole
        reco^3 and all the evidences finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes Involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Art, 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


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RA>x.ROAD ADJUBWEIYT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Ad,'Justment Boned

 By
    o emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 20th day of October 1982.

                                      (C E V ED

                                              Vj

                                              'jn2


                                      0 office-G