Chicago and North Western Transportation Comp
 TT"IT OF I24s

"(l) 'he 30 day suspension of tar. C. D. mess was without just
 and sufficient cause and based upon unproven charges.


In February anal March., 1.977, , C1. ant eras work as a Trackman in a gang en

 territory supervised by Roadmaster C. T. Terpkosh. Because of an earlier incident
 involving ClaL-aantfs absence from work, he was under special. orders to obtain per
 mion to absent h:Lymself directly from the Roadnaster or from the Assistant
 Roaaster, rather than from his Foreman.
foreman for permission to leave the job. The foreman responded that it eras all right
 with him,, so long as they also obtained authorization from Mr. ferpkosh. Claimant
 telephoned Roadnaster Terpkosh and requested permission to take the afternoon off.
 Altho the record is somewhat in conflict regarding the actual conversation,, we
 are -persuaded that Claimant told the Roadmaster in sure or substance that he and tar.
 Snyder did not want to work in the rain because they were afraid they might catch a.
 cold. Roacaster leipkosh told the nlo",,re*, that their ser°7ices were necssary to
 to r&p.r FRA trouble spots., that they should ,,ear the-sr rin;ear, and that pcrnis
 sign leave was denied. Claimant mess verified that pexmision was denied .rd
 asked ii' the e F byes would be "In trouble" if they left ~ 4
r responded., "Yes." Thereafter C..a and Sder left the job d did not
 work hat afternoon.
 Under date of March 14,, 1977, Claimant was directed to appear for a hear cry
 March 17, 1977, into charges reading follows a
 "To deteine your responsibility connection with your actions on
 Nsarch 11., 1977, when you left woek without proper authority act against
 . direct orders:·::t your Supervisor, .for which you are charged with vio
 lanon of tees ? and 14 of the General relations and Safety I.les
 effective '~ 1., 19767.1'
 Following, the hearing, at which Claimant appeared and eras represented,, he was assessed
 thirty days t suspension wztheut pay based neon a finding of guilt and upon considera
 tion of his per3o:el record. Ire, tee present claim we are asked o set aside b
 discipline on the rounds that lpt was not guilty of misconduct anti that the
 discipline was erwes sire.
 It is established beyond the need fear citation that an np loye i s required to
 obey s. reasonable order of an. authorized suporior when given, and he nay grieva
 later if he believes his rih<ts were violated. The single recognized exception to
 this black letter principle is where -the loyels health or safety would be en
 dangered by obedience. On the record before us we find that Carrier has made a
 ma .facie case of direct disobedience of a reasonable order. Claimant has fallen
 fair ^hort of -the burden of persuasion to show justification for his insubordination.
 V-Nether we measure by objective or subjec vive standards, he has failed -to show that
 working in the rain with the other members c:" his gang would have Liprr: tied his
 health or safety. Clearly he is culpable of misconduct for leaving work rot only
 without valid pen: sich.t in contravention of a direct order. Nor upon considera-
 tion of the proven offense d his past record can we find that a `Ua -- ° sPlion
 w=s a.hltr .,eaonahle or capricious. In the circum, stances

 Public Law Board No. 1344, upon the whole record and aid. of the evidence., finds mad holds as follows:
 1. 'That the Carrier and Employe involved in this diute ~e,, respectively, Carrier d. °~::loye within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act;





Claim denied.

 - ~-Pj A/-I. /.I-

 R. W~. Sehm3.ege, Carrier M'oer