(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The dismissal of Trackman F. K. Johnson for alleged 'Violation of Amtrak Rule of Conduct "I" ... in that on March 20, 1984, ... you refused a direct order of Project Engineer J. Lepman', was arbitrary, capricious, unwarranted and on the basis of a trial that was not fair or impartial (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-875D).

 (2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record shall be cleared of the charges leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was dismissed in all capacities on April 6, 1984
 for reason of insubordination. A Management official three
 times gave him an order, and twice spoke to Claimant's Foreman about the
 refusal to comply, all to no avail. A witness corroborated the interchange.

 The Organization raises timeliness, discrimination and credibility issues. Concerning the first of these, the Carrier offered to postpone a Hearing to allow for more preparation time, but the Claimant declined the opportunity. Regarding the second issue, the facts of another case allegedly handled in a disparate manner are not part of the record here, so we are not in a position to review the findings. As to credibility, it is the Hearing Officer who is able to render such judgments. We must rely on him since the witnesses are not testifying before us in a de novo proceeding.

 The Board finds no reason to alter the discipline that was imposed. This conclusion is supported by the Claimant's unenviable personnel record. On three previous occasions he was suspended. One of these was originally a dismissal that was reduced on a leniency basis in relation to a travel pass abuse. The other two were a ten and a fifteen-day suspension for insubordination. Progressive discip yield the sought-after goal of correcting unacceptable behavior.



                        Docket Number MW-26345


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:
        Nancy J. D er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of September 1986.