Parties to the Dispute
SPECIAL BOARD OF AD,TUSTVENT N0. 936

 Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

Norfolk and Western Railway Company

(Lake Region)


STATEME:aT OF CLAIM
(1) The dismissal of Trackman B. R. Hill for alleged insubordination was without just and sufficient cause, on the basis of unproven charges, arbitrary and capricious. [File No. KW-BVE-78-41].
(2) Trackman B. R. Hill shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and compensated for all wage loss suffered.

 OPINION OF THE BOARD
Claimant was employed as a Trackman on the R-2 Rail Gann'. On May 11, 1981, while working at the head end of the gang, Claimant was approached by the Assistant Foreman and told to move to the rear of the gang and set spikes. Claimant questioned this order. The Rail Gang Supervisor was called and he too instructed Claimant to move to the rear of the gang. Carrier contends that Claimant refused direct orders from two Supervisors. Claimant was removed from service

 Case No. 8 Award No. 8



                        ,,


and on thy 11 , 1981 he was charged a s follows:

 You arc hereby notified to report to the Division Engineer's Office, 1st Floor, :)Id Administration Building, Foot of Wood Street, i'ellcvue, Ohio at 10:00 AM, May 15, 19.31 for formal investigation to determine your responsibility in connection with your insubordination to Assistant Foreman R-2 Rail Gang C. R. Sloss and i;-'1 Rail, Gan,- Supervisor H. A. Greenfield on Monday, 'lay 11, 1981 at approximately 3:00 AM while working as Laborer on n-2 Rail Gang in Bellevue Terminal i.n that you failed and refused to proceed to the rear of the R=_'' Rail Cant; anti set spikes as instructed by them. An investigation into the matter was held on Hay 1:5, 1981. Claimant alas found guilty of insuhordKation and was dismissed from service. The transcript of the hearing hus !:e^n made a part of the record of this case. A review of that record reveals that Claimant was afforded all substanLtvc and procedural rights guaranteed by Agreement. IL also reveals that Claimant was in fact insubordinate and he did refuse a direct order to Move to the rear of the gang and set spikes. The history of dispute rcsolutlon in the railroad industry clearly establishes that insuburuinatinn is a serious iniractinn and in most cases 15 a dischargaablo offense. Carrier con not tulerate empLoyes who refuse legit LLwaLe orders froin their Supvrvi-4or!~. The consequences of allovia,g such behavior is evident to all. who have worked in an induSLri:·L setting; CL is common. L_nowledge that employes hava to obey the '.:ass. It is also common knowltrel;;e that
 5aA a3
 Case No. 8
 Award No. S

 refusal to do so can result in termination. Claimant in this case refused orders from two Supervisors. Uhatever his reasons for refusing, they were not justified antl his removal from service was appropriate.

Ald.; RD

The claim is denied.


R. i:. `..?ennis, ..cutral aember

 S. C. Lyons, Ca -rt)er

 !I. G. Harper, Employ f Mc-inber
 '58.4,