iC LAW HOM T .
 AWARD NO. 22
 CASs 93. 24
 1"M ° _ - ?0 T"I



and
 Moog* and North Westo
 xl9U
 Mx








9P=1 4T HD
 fto facts in this oasa s" rir y Claimant
 D. J. Hell. was as a Track Walker with hours of work 7 a.:. to 300 pm,
 It apprt a.m. as the morning of 20: 1976, hatottv)nmed on goo&
 !s office at !Trake andl toad his ftrthat he had miseed his srWLs
 train Voodstoak, where he lived# to the ass point at Crystal Lake
 tbwo crew was working that day at Hart HarUmvis Section Foreman Minor agreed to Via&
 Ciainarat up when the work truck passes . !be !b did pick
 Claimant up at a point la Woods at 700 am. but*ol to drive Claimant
 back to his base to pick up his lumb which he had foWttm. While an roate
 to the job sits the notified Claimant that he vouIA be sbown as rap
 for work at 630 a a. !hr record ohms that Claimant vas bleat wins the f
 and For Miller testiiled without contradiction that Claimant ·called s: a
 few names." Claimant vas reading a newspaper in the truck and upon reaching the job site he continued to read his newspaper while getting out of the truck. Forman her told him once to start working and Claimant without comment aontinued to read his newspaper. Foreman her told hiss a second time to start worms, to which Claimant responded, *Get fcked," and continued to read his newspaper. Within minutes of this encounter Pbzwsan ?Riper departed to pick up another crew and Claimant still had not begun, vorking bat continued to road the newspaper.
 In our judgment the factual record in this case fully substantiates the charge against Claimant that he refused to work as instructed by his supervisor. In order to prove insubdtdiAition Carrier does mot in &very case have to show that the esaploywe stated in so marq words, x5o, I will not do the work." Certainly in this case it is demonstrated beyond cavil that Claimant responded to a reasonable order .from his authorised superior with a contemptuous prolanitar and a failure to perform as instructed. He was not charged with profanity bat his ch6lce of language is probative of his attitude arid intent to disobeq the Pkraman. Nor is it relevant that he put the paper dwwn and vent to work after the Fbreaan left. Being "a little bit insubordinate" is like being "a little bit pregnant" in that Mairaant's virtuous behavior care too late to undo the doneee of his intemperate conduct. With respect to the quantum of discipline imposed, our function is to deteraina whether the penalty imposed by Carrier is arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious in the ciraussstanaes. Using that accepted standard of judgment we are not persuaded on this record that we should modify or set aside the discipline of Claimant. This does not necessarily mean tat we would have assessed the same quantum of discipline in the first instance, nor that ve believe a lesser penalty xotlld have been wholly insppxpriate. Hut utilizing the
standards universally applied in railroad labor arbitration, we are unable to conclude that Carrier alted unreasonably with respect to the amount of discipline it imposed in this case. FTNDy
 Public Law Board rib. 1844, upon the vbvle reoord and all of the rvidenae, finds and halals as follows t
 1. That the Carrier and EWloy*v involved in this dispute are, respeotivellp Carrier and Moployee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Aotj
 2. that the Hoard ban jurisdiction orer the dispute involved herein; and

                Dana E. s en,


0. M. Berg*,, Eep o e Heater . W. S ever Member