PARTIES TO DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF CI
Claim ton behalf of Chattanooga Laborer F.H. Nard, ,Tr. for pay at his respective laborer's rate for all time lost from March 24 through May 25, 1987 account of being suspended account not properly protecting his assignment and_no;t,following written instructions.

 PUBLIC LAW BOARD NUMBER 3445

 Award Number: 74
 Case Number: 74

 BAQ'XHE&libOD OF NAIt3TENANCE OF WAY EM PL(7YES

 And

 SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

 FINDINGS
The issue to be decided in this dispute

 is whether Claimant was

 suspended for just cause under the Agreement; and if not, what should the

 remedy be.

 Claimant entered the Carrier's service on March 4, 1980.

 By letter dated March 27, 1987, Claimant was ordered.to attend a formal,.. investigation on charges that he failed to protect his assignment and that he was insubordinate. .The investigation was postponed once and was held on April 9, 1987. By letter dated April 17, 1987, Claimant was suspended for 60 days based on evidence adduced at the investigation supporting the charges against him.
 On February 17, 1987, Claimant exercised his displacement rights.into

 Surfacing,Cang No. 3. At the same time, he signed a copy of the Carrier's/' January 1,,1987 instruction whichnotified employees that they must,pbtain4, permission prior to being absent from work; -failure to do so would subject

 them to discipline.,

 Claimant was late for work once and left work early once both in early , March 1987. On both occasions, he complied with the January 1, 1987 letter,

 of instruction as to notice to his supervisor.

 On March 24 (one day after Claimant's gang moved from Chattanooga to Valley Head, Alabama) Claimant was late to work. .He did not contact his supervisor prior to arrival. He reported for duty 20 minutes late, but his gang had already departed for its job site. Claimant made his way to the site in his personal' vehicle but.o'nlarrival was not permitted to go on duty.

 At the investigation, Claimant's supervisor testified that on March 23, Claimant had'sought.to be released from duty on March 24. Machine Operator C. &. Hicks testified that Claimant had intended to be late on March 24 and

 asked Hicks to ;"cover",- for him.'

 The position of the Carrier is that Claimant was suspended for just cause under the Agreement. The"Cqrrier maintains that Claimant knew of the_ procedureslregArding,absences from'WOrk including the notification requirement and the discipline, potential for violation. The Carrier contends that it has proved that Claimant did not protect his assignment on the morning of March 24 and that helhad planned to be absent as early,as the previous. day. ,
 The Carrier argues that Claimant's discipline was warranted based on his
failure to protect his assignment and his insubordination as to the

 provisions of the January L letter.

 3NLt5 -'7 `f

 The position of the Organization is that Claimant was suspended.withou~tjust Cause."The Organization acknowledges that,Claimant was late to work. It mai~tain$! hat°he was late becauqe he got lost and ,that- the .supervisor ,`;

wrongly refused to let him assume his duties, Further, the Organization

 contends that Claimant was not insubordinate because he exhibited no -

"unyiillingness'to'submit to,,authority." Finally, the Organization contends that the discipline of 60 days suspension is unduely harsh.

 After review of the entire record, the $oardrmodi~fies the discipline in this case and reduces it toga period of 15 days. Claimant is to receive back pay, benefits and seniority for the balance of.the_60 days for which ,he,-

 was suspended.,

 ;The Carrier has established by substantive credible, evidence in the
 record that Claimant was late to work on March 24; 1987.' There, ;is hot'.,
 sufficient basis, however, to say that he was more that 20 minutes late. i
 Moreover, while he was late, the Organization has established that there was
 no intent to challenge the lawful authority of the Carrier. While Claimant
 did not comply with the instruction to be at work on time, that is the .
 implied requirement.in every employment situation in the work place, It is
 unreasonable for the Carrier to construe every failure to protect an
 assignment as insubordination. Moreover, even if this were insubordination,-='
 the severity of the suspension is disproportionate to the offense committed,
                    ~3qys7-? 4 .


Therefore, the.more appropriate disposition is/ a reduction of the suspension
 period to 15 days,with back pay, benefits and seniority restored,for the ,· 1·'
 remainder of the period.

                                                ..`L

                                  n · bIl 1.

                                                    11-


AWaR

 Claim disposed of per Finding i . ,
 1 .

 Neutr 1 Me e

                                                  1


                    Carrier Member


                    Organization Member'


Date: ~~. ~2~ ~~ - . _- ,

                                              1


        1


1 v 1,

                                                1


                                            1


                                                f