PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
 Lines)
 STATFN;;NT That the Carrier's decision to place a letter
 OF CLAIM. of reprimand on Claimant's personal record was
 excessive, unduly harsh and in abuse of
 discretion, and in violation of the terms and
 provisions of the current Collective
 Bargaining Agreement.
 That because of the Carrier's failure to
 sustain and support the charges by
 introduction of substantial bona fide
 evidence, that the Carrier now be required to
 expunge letter of reprimand from Claimant's
 personal record, and that the charges be
 removed from his record.

 FINDINGS
Upon reviewing the record, as submitted, I find that the Parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Special Board of Adjustment is duly constituted and has jurisdiction of the Parties and the subject matter; with this arbitrator being sole signatory.

 The Claimant was first employed on April 1, 1986 and entered the service of the Western Seniority District of the
                                              9


Sacramento Division, Southern Pacific Transportation Company in the Track Sub-department. At some point during the Spring of 1987, he bid and was awarded a position on the Crossing and Switch Gang 5 with normal working hours of 6:00 am. to 2:00 p.m.. He only worked for one day in that assignment before he was sent to help on the tie gang. The work day for the tie gang began at 5:00 a.m. and ended accordingly. On May 1, 1987, the
 Claimant was issued a Letter of Reprimand for arriving at his
 fr assignment late. The Organizaton filed an appeal on behalf of the Claimant contending the Letter of Reprimand was unjustifiable and arguing that the Claimant had reported to work before 6:00 a.m., which was his assigned starting time as a member of the Crossing and Switch Gang 5.

 The Division Engineer, J. J. Deis, stated in his response to the appeal that the Claimant had been warned several times about arriving late (after 5:00 a.m.) at his assigned job with the tie gang. While the record of the Employe only indicates one such warning issued on April 29, 1987, the Division Engineer's claim of several warnings was undisputed. Anytime an employe is given a direct order or warning relative to his behavior, he is obligated to respond positively unless the direction would place him in danger. The failure of an employe to comply simply because he believes his actions are correct and management's are wrong, is unacceptable. Self-help remedies will not excuse an employe's failure to follow the directions of management. This case is no exception. The Claimant had access

                          2

to the Agreement and had access to the Organization. If he felt he was being asked to do something which was a violation of the Agreement, he should have obeyed the directive and filed a grievance. Because he did not do that the Letter of Reprimand is appropriate.
 Besides, the Employe was working with the tie gang whose starting time was 5:00 a.m., he knew this, employes should expect to arrive at work whenever the shift for his/her particular job starts.

                          AWARD


The Claim is denied.

                                wr


                            Carol J. a ~rini, Neutral


                                  v'


Submitted:

 February 2, 1988 Denver, Colorado

                          3