PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of_E·!ay Employes
 TO
 DISPUTE and

$TATEIMENT 1. That the Carrier violated the Agreement, effective January 1,
 OF CLAIM: 1973, when on February 28, 1977 they discharged Sectionman J.R.
 Crum, said dismissal being arbitrary, harsh and disproportionate
 to the offense committed.
 2. That the Carrier shall reinstate J. R. Orum to his former position
 of Section Laborer with seniority, vacation and other rights unim
 paired and, additionally, compensate him for loss of earnings
 suffered account the Carrier's improper action.
 FINDINGS: Effective 8:30 a.m., February 25, 1977, Grievant was removed from
 service as Sectionman, Section 7231, Yakima, for violation of Rule
 700, reading in part: "Employes will not be retained in the service who are .....
 insubordinate...". The record is clear that Grievant was instructed by his Fore
 man to unload scrap off the truck, the scrap consisting of joint bars, tie plates,
 spikes, etc., all of which he could safely and reasonably unload by himself. Griev
 ant, however, did not do what he was instructed to do. He asked his Foreman if he
 was going to help him, to which he received a "No", and stated: "I never said that i
 2 won't unload the scrap, just that I wouldn't do it at that time." (Tr., p.13). '
 Grievant told his Foreman that he was going to help another employee "clean switches
 and that I would have him help me unload the truck after we finished with the switches." .
 (Tr., p. 14). The Foreman has testified that shortly after instructing Grievant to
 unload the scrap, he saw Grievant "just walking out of the tool house with a switch !
 broom in his hands. I asked him what he thought he was doing and he said that he
 was going to help Whitey sweep switches. I told him that I wanted him to unload
 scrap from the truck onto the flatcar and that Whitey would do the sweeping and
 oiling. He then asked me if I wanted him to unload the truck by himself, and I
 said, 'Yea', and he ::aid, 'I'm not going to do that by myself.' I then said, 'Jc1xn,
 are you telling me that you are refusing to do it?' He said, 'I will not do it by
 myself.' I then told him that I would have to fire him if he refused to do what he
 had been told to do." (Tr., pp. 9-10).

 Grievant expressly refused to comply with his Foreman's instructionG and arrogated to himself the authority of his Foreman to determine the timing and manner of his work performance and the timing and manner of work performance of his fellow employee. Such refusal to comply with reasonable and proper instructions is insubordination regardless of the Grievant's subjective willingness to perform the requested work under his own desired arrangements. Insubordination yields industrial anarchy and industrial anarchy in railroading obviously cannot be condoned. Grievant's duty was to comply with his instructions and to grieve later if he felt that he was being unjustly treated.

 Insubordination is a grave offense, and Rule 700 gives fair warning that employees will not be retained in the service who are insubordinate. The

                                                2Z4J7


                                            Award No. 1

                                            Case No. 1

                                            Page 2


record does not show circumstances warranting mitigation. Grievant complains that the Foreman "started to give me a bad time about driving the truck and being on the YVT" (regarding Gettinr; Whitcy to toilet); that the Foreman wus "picking on me aLain about the truck"; that he told the Foreman "to talk to me like a human being and not like a dog°; that he told the Foreman, "I'm in a bad mood this morning." (Tr. pp. 7-8). Conceivably, the Foreman might have been acutely sensitive to Grievant's moodiness and might have treated Grievant with tender and loving care. The Foreman, however, is responsible for work to be done, and there is no evidence that he in any way abused his position, used profanity, or provoked the Grievant. The record not only shows a lack of mitigating circumstances, but there is a positive showing of aggravating factors which justify the full measure of discipline. Grievant attacked his Foreman, who testified that Grievant "threw his broom away and shoved me back from the shoulders witI', Loth hands against the tool house. " `He said, 'If you are going to fire we twice, I am going to make sure you are going into the hospital,' and he kept striking me ·*· At no time dial I swing at him°. (Tr., p. 10). The Foreman's injuries required medical care. Claimant has admitted attacking his Foreman and inflicting bodily harm, and the Carrier should not be required to retain an individual possessing such a tendency in its employ since it has an obligation to protect its employes from injury by others, and the: use of violence at the work place cannot be condoned. It is further noted from Grievant's record that he had approximately four years, eight months service when last removed from service, and that his removal in this instance was the third time he had been dismissed within a period of less than eight months.

                    A 1·l A R D


          The Claim is denied.


PUBLIC LAM HOARD 170. 2267
        ~C,


              JOSEPH LAZAR, Chairman and Neutral Member


      l . vJr~ 'I, l ~.~:~ /I y


S. E. FLEMING, Employe Miembei~ E. R. MYERS, Car ar !~&:itb_-r