Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS'^IENT BOARD Award No. 29447
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-30174
 92-3-92-3-1
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Barry E. Simon when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLA Dt: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Houston Belt and Terminal (HB&T) Railroad:

 Claim on behalf of TL. !Cuykendall, for reinstatement to service with all lost wages and benefits restored, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly, Article VII, when it assessed him with excessive discipline." GC File No. 91-51-H-D. BRS File No. 8527.HB&T.

 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 February 4, 1991, Claimant received a letter from the Carrier directing him to attend a "Sav-A-Back" class scheduled for 3:00 P.M. on February 26, 1991. On February 7, 1991, Claimant informed the Signal Superintendent he had a doctor' appointment because this was the last class offered on the Carrier. On the day of the scheduled class, Claimant's Foreman reminded him that he was required to attend. When Claimant said he would not attend because he had something else to do, the Foreman instructed him to telephone the Superintendent. Claimant did so, a attend the class. According to the Superintendent, Claimant became argumentative, loud and abusive d Form 1 Award No. 29447
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-30174
 92-3-92-3-1

 Claimant was subsequently directed to attend a Hearing, at which he was charged with failing to comply with instructions to attend the class and insubordination. Following this Hearing, Claimant was dismissed from service.

 The Organization has appealed this claim strictly upon the issue of the severity of the discipline. Accordingly, there is no issue of the validity of the charge against nature and severity of the offense, the Claimant's prior record and any mitigating circumstances.
 According to Claimant, he was having financial and legal problems as a result of his being off work due to an injury. Although the Carrier had continued paying him for part )f the time he was off, these payments had stopped. Claimant states he was in jeopardy of losing his home and had to hake arrangements to prevent :'z is. In Claimant's mind, this took precedence over attending the ,:lass.

 We can see how the stress Claimant was under could lead him to act in the manner he did. There is no evidence this was typical behavior for him. Claimant, at the tine of this incident, had twelve years of service with the Carrier. We have not been referred to any prior discipline. Under the circumstances, we find that the discipline imposed was excessive and direct that Claimant be reinstated to service with seniority unimpaired, but without compensation for time lost.

 In returning Claimant to work, we wish to make it clear to him that while his circumstances may have explained his conduct, they did not excuse it. We have not listurbed the Carrier's finding that Claimant failed to follow instructions and was insubordinate. Any future occurrences of a similar nature, explainable or not, may result in his dismissal.




                          By Order of Third Division


                      00,


Attest: -

        Nancy Executive Secretar

        Y Y


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of October 1992.