Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 (Texas and Louisiana Lines)
 Statement
 of Claim: 1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement when Laborer
 E. J. Flores was unjustly dismissed on April 9, 1979.

 2. Claimant E. J. Flores shall be reinstated to his
 former position with pay for all time lost, seniority,
 vacation and all other rights unimpaired.
 Findings: The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and evidence,
 finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning
 of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted
 by Agreement dated July 19, 1979, that it has jurisdiction of the parties
 and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of
 the hearing held.
 Claimant Laborer was advised by his Division Engineer under date of April 9, 1979:

        "On April 9, 1979 you were instructed by the Foreman and the Roadmaster to get on the welder's truck to be transported to the job site because the regular gang truck was bad ordered. You did not follow the Foreman or Roadmaster's instructions. This is in violation of Rule 801 of the general rules and regulations of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, ....


        Rule 801: 'Employes will not be retained in the service who are... insubordinate...'


        For your violation of Rule 801, you are dismissed from the service of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company..."

Claimant requested and was granted a hearing which was held May 15, 1979. Thereafter, Claimant was advised:

        "I have reviewed the transcript of the hearing which was given to you on May 15, 1979 and find that by your

-2- Award No. 25 - .7 y'//

        own admission, you were insubordinate as charged; therefore, your dismissal will stand."

    The Board finds that Claimant was accorded due process.

There was sufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant being insubordinate.
 However, as to the discipline assessed the Board finds that it was so disparate as to represent an abuse of Carrier's discretion. There were other employees who had also refused to ride on the truck. Claimant was sent home and dismissed from service while the other two employees were also sent home but were only suspended. Thereafter, the remaining employees were transported to the job in another truck.
 In the circumstances, the Board concludes that while Carrier proved that CZaimant~ who was one of three who were insubordinate, had been insubordinate it treated Claimant differently than the other two employees who similarly refused. While we recognize that insubordination is a serious offense there appears-to be basis for questioning whether it was appropriate for these three employees, as well as the rest of the gang to ride in the rear of the truck. Notwithstanding, the remaining gang member did.
 The Board will reduce the discipline assessed to 30 days suspension. Claimant shall be paid the difference in earnings lost predicated on the basis of his work habit for the year preceding the period of dismissal less the usual and customary deductions.

 Award: Claim disposed of as per findings.

      Order: Carrier is directed to make this Award within thirty (30) days of date of issuance shown below.


M. A. Christie, Employee Member C. B. Goyne, Carrier Member

rthur T. Van Wart, Chairman

and Neutral Member


      Issued at Falmouth, Massachusetts, August 15, 1980.