Form I
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION

 Award No. 39918
 Docket No. SG-40324
 09-3-NRAB-00003-080120

 The Third Division consisted of the red members and in addition Referee Ann S. Kenis when award was rendered.

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

 (BNSF Railway Company

"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe:


Claim on behalf of M. Bee, for his personal record to be cleared of any mention of this matter, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 54, when it imposed the excessive disciple of a Level S, 30-day record suspension with a probation period of one year without providing a fair and impartial investigation and without meeting its burden of proving the charges in connection with an investigation held on August 15, 2406. Carrier's File No. 35-06-0040. General Chairman's File No. 06-038BNSF-154-TC. BRS File Case No. 13824-BNSF."


FINDINGS:

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

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

 This Division of involved herein.

 Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
 Form 1 Award No. 39918
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-40324
 09-3-NRAB-00003-080120

The Claimant in this case was assigned to the position of a CTC Signal
 Maintainer, headquartered at Willmar, Minnesota. On Friday, July 28, 2006, the
 Claimant's regularly assigned hours were '7 :00 A.NL to 3:30 P.M. He took part in
 the start of shift conference call on that date and stated that his plan of work was to
 take part in "general maintenance." At approximately 11:00 A.M., a Maintainer
 was needed to respond to a trouble call. Assistant Supervisor V. Duque placed a call
 to the Claimant to discuss the trouble call and verify if the Claimant's truck was out
 of service. When she did not get an answer, she left a message and paged another
 employee to respond to the trouble call. Between 12:45 P.M. and 1:15 P.M.,
 Assistant Supervisor Duque tried cog the Claimant twice more and was still
 unable to reach him. Shortly after 2:00 P.M, Assistant Supervisor Duque made a
 fourth call and left a voice message. The Claimant called back shortly thereafter
 explaining that he had decided to leave work early. He was informed that such a
 decision needed to be discussed with a supervisor ahead of time. Assistant
 Supervisor Duque then told the Claimant to return to work. He responded "okay,"
 but did not return to service. At approximately 3:00 P.M., the Claimant was called
 to respond to another trouble call. The Claimant returned this call, stating that he
 was unable to respond. He then called the signal desk to inform them that he was
 "off call" and wired "off duty" to the IVR System.

On August 1, 2006, the Claimant was directed to attend an Investigation in connection with his alleged failure to comply with instructions. The Investigation was held, after one postponement, on August 15, 2006. Subsequently, the Claimant was found guilty of violating Rule 1.6, which prohibits insubordinate conduct. The Claimant was issued a Level S record suspension of 30 days, and a one-year probationary period.


Upon reviewing the record, the Board finds that there is substantial evidence to support the charges against the Claimant. In his testimony at the Hearing, the Claimant admitted that he did not comply with the Carrier's Rules and acted in an insubordinate manner. He stated:

Form 1 Award No. 39918
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-40324
 09-3-NRAB-00003-080120
 "I admit that I made a mistake. I admit that I should have handled
 it in a different manner. On July 28, I was wrong. I was wrong and
 I should have contacted Ms. Duque on what I was planning on doing
 that afternoon."
 The record establishes that the Claimant left work, fading to calI in and mark
 off with the call desk or his Supervisor prior to leaving work. He then compounded
 his initial conduct by disregarding his Supervisor's direct order to return to
 work. He was insubordinate as charged and was deserving of discipline.

Based upon the facts and circumstances presented, the Board has no basis to interfere with the discipline imposed. The Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial Investigation and no mitigating circumstances are present on this record to justify a modification of the penalty. Insubordination is a serious offense and has been found to warrant discharge for a first offense. We cannot say that the issuance of a 30-day suspension with a one-year probation period is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, this claim must be denied.








This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.



                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 2009.