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

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

This claim arose when the Claimant received a 30 day suspension after being found guilty of being insubordinate, a violation of Operating Rule 501, when he allegedly failed to notify his Roadmaster of the change in his medical status.

On Thursdav, .March 10. 199.1, the Claimant sustained a personal injury to his neck while installing rail anchors. After regaining his "composure", he completed his tour of duty that dav. The Claimant's rest days were Friday, Saturdav, and Sunday. On Mondav, March 14, 1994, the Claimant reported for duty wearing a back brace and was observed by Track Foreman Ball who contacted the Roadmaster. The Roadmaster accompanied the Claimant to the Carrier nurse where the Claimant received first aid. The Claimant was then instructed to seek further medical attention if the pain persisted. Also, the Claimant was instructed by the Roadmaster to contact him immediately if the Claimant had to seek further medical attention.

On March 15, 1994, the Claimant decided that it was necessary to see his doctor and he allegedly attempted to contact the Roadmaster, but was unable to reach him. He then contacted Track Foreman Ball and informed him that he was going to see his doctor regarding the personal injury he had sustained while on duty.

Subsequently, the Claimant was disallowed his return to service and on April 4, 1994, he was charged with insubordination.

The Organization argues that the Carrier failed to prove its charges against the Claimant and did not afford him a fair and impartial Hearing. The Organization points out that the Claimant did contact Track Foreman Ball after failed attempts to contact the Roadmaster.

The Carrier contends that the charges were proven that the Claimant did not contact the Roadmaster after he had been instructed to do so. The Carrier argues that the Roadmaster had two telephone lines in his office and he gave his home number to the

Claimant. The Carrier contends that the charges were proven and the discipline was appropriate considering the seriousness of the wrongdoing.

The Board reviewed the procedural arguments raised by the Organization and we find them to be without merit.

With respect to the substantive issue, the Board reviewed the evidence and testimony and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of insubordination when he failed to notify his Roadmaster of the change in his medical status and also failed to notify him regarding his medical appointment and the name of his physician. The record is clear that the Claimant failed to contact the Roadmaster and did not even give the information to the Roadmaster once the Roadmaster had reached him through his wife.

Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the guilty finding, we neat turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.

Insubordination has often been found to support a discharge on a first offense. In this case, the Claimant was issued a 30 day suspension. The Board recognizes that this Claimant had 18 years of satisfactory service and was suffering from an injury. However, he was given a clear instruction and he failed to abide by it. The Board cannot find that the 30 day suspension issued by the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, the claim will be denied.

AWARD