PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:






OPINION OF THE BOARD:
 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds that the Employe and the Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 On September 12, 1981, the Carrier directed the Claimant to attend an investigation on the following charge:



PLB - 2960
 Awd. 158

 The investgation was held on October 6, 1981, after several postponements.
 On October l6, 1981, the Carrier assessed the discipline now on appeal
 before the bard.
 The Carrier's case against the Claimant rests primarily, but not
 exclusively, on the testimony of Roadmaster Gaskill. He testified that he
 stopped in the vicinity of the Claimant's crew on the day in question when
 the Claimant approached him. The Claimant had a question concerning the
 propriety of a job assignment and job posting of another employee. Gaskill
 testified be explained why the assignment was being handled in such a manner.
 It is also noted that the conversation took place in front of the rest of the
 crew. He testified that:

Gaskill then prepared a letter removing the Claimant from service, which the Claimant refused to sign a receipt for. The Carrier also notes in support of their position that two witnesses in addition to the Claimant's witnesses testified at the hearing that the Claimant refused to comply with Gaskill's instructions to return to talk to him. The Organization takes the position that no insubordination occurred. They contend that the Claimant did not refuse to listen to the Roadmaster


and that the Claimant was in a position where Gaskill could have addressed the Claimant in a regular conversational voice to make any further explanation which may have been necessary. They suggest it was not necessary for the Claimant to be face to face to receive the instructions and that the Claimant was aware of the earlier explanation and understood. Therefore, the matter needed no additional explaining. In essence, they believe Mr. Gaskiil's instructions for Claimant to "come here" served absolutely no purpose since Claimant was already in the vicinity.
 The Board concludes after a review of the record that the Claimant's conduct on the day in question was insubordinate and improper. He was first insubordinate when in the discussion of his grievance he became angry, profane, and loud. The second aspect of his insubordination occurred when he refused to continue his conversation with the Roadmaster.
 The Organization contends the Claimant did not refuse to talk to Gaskill and the conversation which had ended could have been carried on from the distance involved. However, the Board accepts as fact that the Claimant did in fact refuse to continue the conversation which was indicated by his comment, "I don't have to talk to you man." Moreover, the Board believes that the supervisor's request for the Claimant to continue the conversation and to listen to his explanation again was reasonable under the circumstances. The conversation and the Claimant's outburst occurred in front of the rest of the crew and it was proper for the supervisor to seek an understanding with the. Claimant to minimize the potentially disruptive impact the discussion could have had on the crew.
we note that under similar circumstances we found a 30-day suspension to be
 CA~" r(o. 5-n) appropriate for the Claimant in Case No. 38,Of this Board. In view of the
 PLB - 2960
 Awd. 1158 4

 previous discipline and the seriousness of the offense, a greater and progressive penalty is appropriate and, therefore, the discipline is not excessive.

 AWARD: The Claim is denied.


                                  ~LC,'~.u G~.C~

      Harper, m oye Member . Crawford, Carrier em er


Dated: '0 5 C i n C-