t~ . l~ei) <7


_ Z °~r ?.,s n t3 c

Case No. 27 a



















reports" was being withdrawn as it was not confirmed at the hearing. The Carrier also notified the Claimant that he was being issued discipline of a thirty-day suspension for his insubordination on the day in question, commencing July 1, 1991, and
                                    t


terminating July 30, 1991.
 The Organization thereafter filed a claim on behalf of the Claimant, challenging his suspension.
 This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of insubordination when he failed to be present as instructed to do so by his supervisor in order to discuss the injury that he had suffered. The record also reveals that the Claimant failed to call the supervisor's office to inform him that he would not be present.
 Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
 In this case, the Claimant was initially charged with making false and conflicting reports and insubordination. There is no evidence of making false and conflicting reports in the record and Division Engineer Tomkins eventually withdrew those charges. However, Division Engineer Tomkins assessed a thirty-day.suspension to the Claimant for his insubordination.

 2
                                                SQA .103'7

    ~. ... r:;: Case


          Insubordination is often a serious off ense~when it involves


_ an employee refusing a direct assignment from his employer. The
      employer has to have the right to direct its workforce, and

      insubordination on the part of'an employee can be a serious

      impediment to that procedure.

      In this case, the Claimant merely failed to show up to meet with the supervisor, after he was instructed to do so, to discuss an injury that the Claimant had received on the job. Although there is no question that that is insubordination, it is not the type of insubordination that justifies a serious disciplinary action such as a thirty-day suspension.

      This Claimant has been employed by the carrier since 1977 and has a relatively good record with only a few disciplinary actions having been taken against him. The most recent disciplinary action was a five-day overhead suspension because the Claimant was responsible for the loss of fifty gallons of diesel fuel. This Board finds that the record cannot justify a thirty-day suspension for the minor type of insubordination of which the Claimant is guilty here. Therefore, we find that the thirty-day suspension be reduced to a five-day suspension and that the Claimant be made whole for all lost time above five days. AWARD:

      Claim sustained in part. The thirty-day suspension of the Claimant for the insubordination is hereby reduced tb'a five-day suspension, and the Claimant is to be made whole for the time


                                3

lost above five days.

 PETER R. Y s Neutral M mbe

 Carrier Member

 56A /03-7 Case 9-7