(Thomas G. Hall PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "(a) Carrier violated the Agreement when they did on September 1, 1982 dismiss from service Mr. Thomas G. Hall as a result of investigation conducted August 24, 1982 to comply with instructions of his Supervising Officer on July 3, 6, 7 and 9, 1982, and failure to properly protect his assignment in the Computer Center and absenting himself without permission on July 10, 13 and 14, 1982.

 (b) Carrier violated the Agreement when they did on September 1, 1982 dismiss from service Mr. Thomas G. Hall as a result of investigation conducted on August 24, 19 refusal to report for Company physical examination on July 27 and 29, 1982.

 (c) Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Claimant with seniority rights unimpaired, clear him for any and all wages lost due to such disciplinary actions."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The significant events leading to this dispute began on
 June 2, 1982. On that date, the Claimant, who was regularly assigned to a clerical position in t Center, reported for work wearing "cut-offs" (shorts). He was told by a Carrier Supervisor that "cut if he did not wear long pants and a shirt to work, he would be sent home. On July 3, 6, 7 and 9, the Claimant reported for duty wearing shorts and he was sent home on each of those days without pay.

 On July 10, 13, and 14, 1982, the Claimant was absent from work without proper authority. The Ca 1982, which focused on charges that the Claimant failed to comly with instructions, failed to protec
After the Investigation had been convened, it was recessed, chiefly because the Claimant's appearance, behavior and refusal to speak suggested to Carrier's agent that a medical problem might be present. Subsequently, two (2) medical examinations were scheduled. However, the Claimant cancelled both of these. Another Investigation then was scheduled and held on the basic charge of insubordination for his refusal to report for the medical examinations. He was found guilt Carrier's service.
                      Docket Number MS-26134


The Board has carefully reviewed the voluminous record that has been developed and progressed in this Claim. We have also carefully considered the personal testimony of the Claimant before us. On the basis of this review, which clearly shows that the Claimant was well and actively represented by the Organization until he chose to pursue his own cause, we find that the Claimant was guilty of the offenses. Under all of the circumstances, the discipline assessed cannot be said to be excessive and the Claim must fail.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties
 to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole
 record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 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 ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 24th day of August 1987.