PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of Trackman H. E. Avery for alleged insubordination on June 16, 1983 was wi Docket CR-231D/DNO-43/783).
(2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant's dismissal on June 29, 1983, followed a formal
 hearing held on June 23, 1983, in which Claimant testified
 in his own behalf and two witnesses in Carrier's cause gave their testimony.
On the foregoing specified date of alleged insubordination, Claimant's Supervisor gave the instruction to Claimant to go from his position under the bridge to the tamper with which he was working previously. The tamper was in distance 800' to 1000' _+ away. Claimant had the advantage of having the specific purpose behind the instruction explained to him. Claimant obstinately resisted the Supervisor's specified purpose, arguing that in another aspect in the way the operation was developing he could see no necessity at the time to make his way to the tamper. In so doing he was completely defeating the very purpose and timing of the supervisory instruction. Still, Claimant per
Claimant compounded his recalcitrance when, next, he was instructed to go to the Company bus or, as he testified, to go sit on the bus. Carrier bused the work gang to and from work in two buses. Claimant failed to locate a Company bus; instead, he unpredictably left the area and did not return. The Supervisor testified that, in a matter of some minutes later when free, he readily located the sites of the two busses and noted the absence of Claimant when he went looking at both sites to talk to Claimant again.
Claimant did not obey orders, either one. He refused to accept instructions as to the tamper at least three times, once in the presence of the Equipment Engineer who testified that he was beside the Supervisor, and that the Supervisor gave the order to work with the tamper but that Claimant did not carry out the order. Claimant admitted to receiving the order to sit on the bus but, consistently, he never carried out that order, either.
                    Docket Number MW-25891


The work place'is no place to be insubordinate. There is a well recognized grievance procedure to follow later, which avoids the confrontation of immediately beginn this Division's Award 21059 dealing with insubordination involving among other things the refusal, three times, by a wrench operator to return to his assigned position, we considered the operator's resulting dismissal and, in denying his claim for reinstatement, we stated: "Consequently, it is well established that dismissal is not inappropriate in cases of insubordination (citing previous awards)." Insubordination is indeed a serious infraction.
        we must again, under the present circumstances, deny the claim.


        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 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


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: i
        Nancy ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 19th day of September 1985. 01'__,~VED
                                                C,


                                              icaE c ap 0