PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE Union Pacific Railroad
 STATEMENT The suspension pending investigation and the
 OF CLAIM fifteen (15) actual- working days suspension
 from service imposed upon Section Foreman D.
 D. Martin for alleged violation of various
 company rules as indicated in Mr. Connolly's
 letter of December 21, 1989, was arbitrary,
 capricious and unwarranted.
 That claimant's record shall be cleared of the
 discipline referred .to in Part (1) and he
 shall be made whole for all losses sustained
 from said suspension.
 FINDINGS



A. 3. Blackwell, to remain in his vehicle to discuss past performance procedures and compliance with otherr rules. The Claimant was accused of violating Rule 607, which reads in part: Rule 607: CONDUCT: Employes must not be: (3) Insubordinate; (6) Quarrelsome.

 The charges arose following an incident on December 1, .1989, when the Manager of Track Maintenance approached the Claimant at the work. site and asked him to get into his vehicle to discuss the filing of time and other procedures. The Claimant initially complied. At some point, he decided he no longer wanted to remain in the vehicle and got out against his supervisor's direction. Despite being asked to get back into the vehicle at least three times, he ignored the order and stayed outside. Following his refusal to get back into the - vehicle, the Supervisor sent him home. The above cited investigation took place a week later. The Carrier believed the evidence proved the Claimant had violated the cited rules and suspended him for fifteen (15) days. The only apparent witnesses to the incident were two employes who were asked to sign a statement of what they saw and heard. They both signed one typed statment which was submitted as an exhibit. According to the statement, the Claimant never refused to talk to the Supervisor and was not argumentative, but did indicate he wanted to stand outside and talk. The statement otherwise, substantiated the Supervisor's contention that the

                            2

                                        q71/7-,,5- -

Claimant refused to comply with a directive to get back into the car. There were no witnesses to the conversation between the two men while they were actually in the car together.
      The only thing proven is that the Claimant did indeed

ignore the Supervisor's order to get back into the car. It must
 be kept in mind that the Claimant was approached on the job. He
 was working at the time the Supervisor first encountered him.
 His excuse that his back was bothering him, while it may have
 been true, was not an acceptable reason for disobeying a
 reasonable order from a supervisor. This Board believes the
 Supervisor's request for the Claimant to carry on a discussion
 in the Supervisor's vehicle was reasonable. Therefore, the -
 Claimant should have complied.
 Insubordination is a serious matter. Even though the Claimant has obviously been a good employe for over twenty-fiveyears, ignoring a reasonable directive from a Supervisor is unacceptable behavior. And while first offenses for many infractions would warrant a much lighter disciplinary assessment, the Board cannot view the fifteen (15) days suspension unreasonable for this rule violation.
      Unlike the case cited by the Union, the Claimant, here,

never requested Union representation during the discussion with
 the Supervisor and was not ultimately discharged. -,
 The Claimant was afforded a full and fair hearing. He was afforded the opportunity to present witnesses.

 3
                                      y 7-s


                      MIARD


The claim is denied.

                            U

                            Car J Zamperini


                            Neutral -


Submitted:

 January 30, 1990
 Denver, Colorado