Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26918
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. TD-26638
 88-3-85-3-387
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.

 (American Train Dispatchers Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Seaboard System Railroad

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "...the discipline assessed Mr. Akers is much too severe
 to fit the circumstances and should be removed and Mr.
 Akers paid for all lost time from his train dispatcher position."

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant has been in the Carrier's service since September 1, 1972 and has functioned as a Train Dispatcher since 1975. As a result of charges dated September 5, 1984, investigation ultimately held on September 26, 1984, and by letter dated October 22, 1984, Claimant was assessed a 90 day suspension for allegedly using responding to an inquiry from an Assistant Terminal Trainmaster on September 1, 1984.

 On September 1, 1984, Hamlet, North Carolina Assistant Terminal Trainmaster J. M. Dyer called Claimant on the phone and asked when Train 246 would arrive at Hamlet. According to Dyer, Claimant responded that he had just given a lineup to the Hamlet Operator and did not have time to give the lineup to everybody. Dyer told Claimant that he did not have a lineup from the operator and asked for the information from Claimant. According to Dyer, Claimant stated "I told you I just gave it to the Operator and I'm busy." Dyer insisted on receiving the information from Claimant. Claimant then responded "I don't care who you are, I gave the line-up to the operator and I'm busy doing block work now." Dyer testified that he told Claimant that he
 Form 1 Award No. 26918
 Page 2 Docket No. TD-26638
 88-3-85-3-387

 would wait, to which Claimant responded, "You can wait all day." Chief Dispatcher W. R. Austin o the phone on the desk and lay his head on the desk. After approximately fifteen seconds, Austin observed Claimant pick up the phone and continue the conversation. Austin characterized Claimant's tone of voice during the conversation as "extremely lo agitated and he was mad."
listen to any more of your mouth" to which Claimant responded "I don't report
 to you and I'm going to file a grievance against you for what you're doing."
 Dyer demanded respect from Claimant due to Dyer's position as an officer of
 the Carrier. Dyer testified that Claimant responded "I don't care who you
 are. You call up here with all these stupid questions. I told you I gave the
 line-up to the Operator." Dyer continued to demand the figure on the train
 and stated that "I want you to give it to me now." According to Dyer, Claim
 ant responded "If you're too lazy to get off your ass and do your job, I'll
 give you something." Dyer again demanded the figure. Claimant finally
 responded stating that "He'll be somewhere at 3:00 p.m." Further, Dyer tes
 tified that the conversation ended after Claimant "used profanity several
 times, directed toward me .... According to Austin, "I heard the word 'damn'
 and I heard the word 'hell' but I can't say in what sequence . Austin
 also testified that after the incident ended Claimant "conducted himself prop
 erly without any further raising of his voice ... and he did his job real
 well.

 Claimant testified that he was extremely busy when Dyer called and had just previously given the lineup information to the Operator. Although giving a different interpretation to the events, the substance of Dyer's testimony is not substantially denied by Claimant.

 Rule G-1 prohibits insubordination. Rules B and D require employees to obey instructions and the Carrier's Rules. Rule 818 requires employees to courteously answer questions and furnish information relating to the movement of trains to those authorized to receive such information. We are satisfied from our examination of the entire record that the Carrier has demonstrated substantial evidence justifying its conclusion that Claimant was in violation of the above-cited Rules. Claimant's responses to Dyer on the date of the incident amounted to the use of insubordinate, discourteous and uncivil language to a Carrier official seeking information from Claimant.

 Nevertheless, we believe that a 90 day suspension under the circumstances of this case is excess several prior instances of misconduct resulting in a letter of caution or the issuance of demerits, has been clear for six and one-half years prior to this incident. Further, we also take note of the fact that at the time of the incident, Claimant was extremely busy and had just given the same information
 Form 1 Award No. 26918
 Page 3 Docket No. TD-26638
 88-3-85-3-387

 sought by Dyer to the Operator. Dyer, although being entitled to the information and to have it Claimant, remained insistent, perhaps to a degree greater than what was called for by the immediate situation. The end result was an incident that simply, and unfortunately, got out of hand. Considering all of the above, we believe that a 45 as opposed to a 90 day suspension would have been appropriate under the circumstances to convey the message to Claimant that his conduct was unacceptable. The suspensio shall be compensated accordingly.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        aancy

      ~ ncy ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of March 1988.