Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27866
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27220
 89-3-86-3-635
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.

 (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 Painter, J. Hoodenpyle for alleged '... insubordination, in violation of Genera the basis of unproven charges, arbitrary, and without just and sufficient cause.

 (2) The claimant's record shall be cleared of the charge leveled against him, he shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be c violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 FINDINGS:

 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.

On Friday, September 20, 1985, Claimant was working along with another Painter under the general supervision of the Assistant to the Bridge Supervisor. Shortly after lunch time that day, the Supervisor had an encounter with Claimant which l scheduled with due notice for October 8, 1985. Claimant did not appear for that Hearing so, at the request of his Representative, another Hearing was scheduled for October 29, 1985. Claimant was given due notice of the rescheduled Hearing and warned forward anyway. Claimant did not appear for the second scheduled Hearing and Carrier proceeded in absentia.
 Form 1 Award No. 27866
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27220
 89-3-86-3-635

 Claimant failed to appear at the Hearing at his peril. We find no procedural defect or denial of required process in Carrier's proceeding _in absentia in these circumstances.

 At the Hearing, the Supervisor testified on direct and cross examination, in pertinent part, as


Mr. Childress; "Would you explain for the record the circumstances
 which caused you to dismiss Joseph Hoodenpyle frdm
 the employ of the Public Belt?
 Mr. Estay: When I went on the West Side to check on Mr. Hooden
 pyle and Mr. Wilkerson, I asked Mr. Wilkerson where
 Mr. Hoodenpyle was. Mr. Wilkerson told me that
 Mr. Hoodenpyle went to the bathroom. I took off from
 there and saw Mr. Hoodenpyle just dragging down the
 road, like he had an hour or two hours to come back
 to work. So I drove up and picked up Mr. Hoodenpyle
 on the way back to work location I asked Mr. Hooden
 pyle at what time did he go to the restroom. And he
 said that it was 5 or 10 minutes on his time. I asked
 him if he was sure. And he said well maybe 5 minutes.
 When I brought him back I told him to get rid of that
 pad he had on the scaffold, because it is unsafe. So
 when he got out of the truck he slammed the door and
 he looked back at me with a awkward look. I asked
 him if he had any problems. Then Mr. Wilkerson start
 ed jumping and hollering on the scaffold, saying don't
 get mad, don't get mad because he can fire you. I
 asked him if there was any problem and he didn't say
 anything so I drove off. I fired him because of his
 attitude and because of the way he slammed the door,
 almost breaking the door on the truck.

Mr. Childress: When did you next see Mr. Hoodenpyle?
 Mr. Estay: That evening at the Administration Bldg. when I ask
 ed Mr. Hoodenpyle to stay after work.
 Mr. Childress: Did he stay?
 Mr. Estay: Yes he stayed after work.
 Mr. Childress: Did you have a discussion with Mr. Hoodenpyle then?
 Form 1 Award No. 27866
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27220
 89-3-86-3-635
 Mr. Estay: I started to have a discussion with Mr. Hoodenpyle,
 while we were having a discussion with a few others.
 Mr. Wilkerson was hollering you don't hear right.
 The next thing I knew Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Hooden
 pyle took off. So I did not get a chance to talk
 to Mr. Hoodenpyle.
 Mr. Childress: Did you dismiss two people that day?
 Mr. Estay: Yes, I dismissed two people that day.

                      Cross Examination


Mr. Solares: What is your definition of the word insubordination,
 Mr. Estay?
 Mr. Estay: Talking back to you, hollering.
 Mr. Solares: Did Mr. Hoodenpyle talk back to you on September 20,
 1985?
 Mr. Estay: No, but he had a bad attitude, by slamming the door
 and his frown on his face. You can tell when a man
 is mad by looking at his face.
 Mr. Solares: Did he make any type of derogatory remarks to you?
 Mr. Estay: No, he did not make any remarks to me.
 Mr. Solares: Did you make any remarks to Mr. Hoodenpyle?
 Mr. Estay: No.
 Mr. Solares: Didn't you ask him if he was mad?
 Mr. Estay: Yes I asked him if he was mad, because he slammed
 the door.
 Mr. Solares: And what was his reply?
 Mr. Estay: He didn't say anything.
 Mr. Solares: When you instructed Mr. Hoodenpyle to remove the
 pad from the scaffold, did Mr. Hoodenpyle comply
 with your instructions?
 Form 1 Award No. 27866
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-27220
 89-3-86-3-635
 Mr. Estay: I left before he climbed up. I don't know if he
 removed it or not.
 Mr. Solares: Did he say that he would not remove the pad from
 the scaffold?
 Mr. Estay: No, but he was still mad. He had that mad look on
 his face.
 Mr. Solares: Isn't it a fact Mr. Estay, you took your frustra
 tions out in regards to an altercation you had
 with Mr. Wilkerson and in turn fired Mr. Hoodenpyle?
 Mr. Estay: No.
 Mr. Solares: On the evening of September 20, 1985, did you ask
 Mr. Hoodenpyle to remain after work hours?
 Mr. Estay: Yes.
 Mr. Solares: What was your reason for requesting Mr. Hoodenpyle
 to remain?
 Mr. Estay: I wanted to talk to Mr. Hoodenpyle about the inci
 dent that happened on the West Side.
 Mr. Solares: Did Mr. Hoodenpyle remain on the property as you
 requested?
 Mr. Estay: Right, he did.
 Mr. Solares: Did you speak to him in regard to the incident that
 allegedly occurred?
 Mr. Estay: No, when I started to talk to him about it he stayed
 for a few minutes then he and Mr. Wilkerson left.
 Mr. Solares: What time was it exactly when Mr. Hoodenpyle left?
 Mr. Estay: A few minutes after knock off time.
 Mr. Solares: Was Mr. Hoodenpyle compensated for overtime on Sept
 ember 20th.?
 Mr. Estay: No.
 Mr. Solares: What made you decide to dismiss Mr. Hoodenpyle from
 service on the evening of September 20, 1985 after
 asking him to remain?
 Form 1 Award No. 27866
 Page 5 Docket No. MW-27220
 89-3-86-3-635
 Mr. Estay: When I went to talk to Mr. Hoodenpyle about his pro
 blem he did not give me the impression that he wanted
 to talk about it. He just kept looking around at the
 other people. And when they left, he left too.
 Mr. Solares: You say he gave you the impression, did he tell you
 he did not want to hear what you had to say?
 Mr. Estay: He did not tell me, but he was looking around
Mr. Solares: Then the answer would be no, right? '
 Mr. Estay: As soon as the other people left, he left, he did
 not give me any explanation.
 Mr. Solares: Is he compelled to remain after work without compen
 sation?
 Mr. Estay: No."

                        x * ,r


After considering the foregoing testimony, Carrier upheld the charge of insubordination and finalized the dismissal of Claimant. The final termination letter dated Novem and Maintenance Director, reads in pertinent part as follows:

        "I have reviewed the transcript of hearing conducted 9:30 A.M., Tuesday, October 29, 1985, and find evidence and testimony contained therein, that Assist without doubt that by your conduct, actions, and expressions, that you were insubordinate, as result verbal reprimand addressed to you by Mr. Estay concerning your lackadaisical attitude in returning t your assigned work duties after the noon meal period and your use of a padded seat rest on the non-skid surface of work scaffold being utilized near Bent W of the West Approach to the Huey P. Long Bridge. At 4:30 P.M., you were asked to remain at the Administration Building by Mr. Estay to discuss the above incident, which you complied with but became involved in an incident between Painter Clarence Wilkerson and Mr. Estay and left Company's Property with Mr. Wilkerson, which was an additional act of insubordination leaving Mr. Estay no alternative but to access the ultimate disciplinary action of dismissal."

Form 1 Award No. 27866
 Page 6 Docket No. MW-27220
 89-3-86-3-635

 Careful review of the record persuades us beyond doubt that this disciplinary action must be overturned. Even in a legitimate Hearing _in absentia, Carrier must, nonetheless, carry its burden of proof of the charges against an accused employee. There is not one iota of probative evidence that Claimant was insubordinate to the Supervisor on September 20, 1985. At worst, the record shows that the Supervisor felt Claimant had an "attitude problem" because he made an angry face and slammed the truck door when he was chastised by the Supervisor. This does not constitute insubordination per se. The record shows no refusal to obey an order and no overt disrespect or disregard of supervisory instructions. Nor does Claimant's behavior during the later conversation show any persuasive evidence of insubordination.

 In the circumstances, to discharge an employee for insubordination on the evidence adduced on this record was a gross abuse of managerial discretion which must be reversed as arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious conduct by management.

 We find the following decision by the Board in Second Division Award 10048 directly on point:

        "Webster's New World Dictionary (1970) defines 'insubordinate' as: 'not submitting to authority; disobedient.' The record does not disclose Claimant refused to obey an order of his superior officer nation, NOT with being churlish surly, impolite, scornful or gruff. There is no evidence even from Carrier's own foreman that Claimant refused to obey the order or directions he received, and therefore, the Board is persuaded by all the evidence and record before it, that while Claimant was neither civil nor tactful, the charge of insubordination was not established." (Emphasis added)


See also Third Division Awards 13240 and 17228.

 Claimant shall be reinstated and compensated in accordance with Rule 16(f) of the controlling Agreement.

                        A W A R D


      Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.

Form 1 Award No. 27866
 Page 7 Docket No. MW-27220
 89-3-86-3-635

                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: 4;i ee-ow.'~ Z44~e-~
      Nancy J. 9 v - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of May 1989.