Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28740
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28930
 91-3-89-3-344
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Barry E. Simon 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 ten (10) days of suspension imposed upon Trackman M. Spikes for alleged insubordination on August 20, 1988 was arbitrary, capricious and on the basis of unproven charges [(System File C-D-4548/ 12(88-909)].

 (2) The Claimant's record shall be cleared of the charge leveled against him and he shall be paid for all wage loss suffered and he shall have the days on which he was suspended from service credited toward his vacation qualifying time."

 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.baa jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Following a Hearing, Claimant was assessed a ten (10) day suspension for insubordination. The Carrier concluded Claimant was guilty of failing to comply with an order from an Assistant Ro~dmaster to report to Newport News, Virginia, for emergency work in connection-with a derailment. The Organization replies that (1) Clai told of the consequences of his failure to do so, and (2) his failure to report was justified because he had been threatened with discharge by the Newport News Foreman.
 Form 1 Award No. 28740
 Page 2 Docket No. Mw-28930
 91-3-89-3-344

 With regard to the Organization's first point, we do not agree that the Assistant Roadmaster was required to take an authoritarian posture before Claimant could be foun he was needed at the derailment site and that he expected to see him there. There was no indication that Claimant's attendance was optional. With thirteen years of service, Cla failure to report for duty as directed.

 The Organization's second point must be rejected without any regard to whether or not it is true. Unlike a threat of physical harm, Claimant is sheltered from improper discharge by the terms of the Agreement and the grievance process. To excuse would be to ignore these protections, which include the function of this Board.

 Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude the assessment of a ten day suspension was unreasonable. The Agreement was not violated.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J~lGer - Executive Secretary


                                . 7


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of March 1991.