PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of'Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
 Lines)
 STATEMENT That the Carrier's decision to suspend
 OF CLAIM Claimant from its service for a period of
 fifteen (15) days was excesslve, 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 prove
 and support the charges by introduction of
 substantial bona fide evidence, that Carrier
 now be required to compensate Claimant for any
 and all loss of earnings suffered, and that
 the charges be removed from his record.
 FINDINGS



                                            9q7-o


Maintenance of Way and Engineering Department Employes of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. Those portion of the rules which read:

      Rule 607:

      CONDUCT: Employes must not be:

      (30 Insubordinate; . . .


      . .Indifference to duty or to the performance of duty will not be condoned. Rule 604: DUTY-REPORTING OR ABSENCE:


      Employes must report for duty at the designated time and place . . . .They must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties, or substitute others in their place without proper authority.


The charges against the Employe stem from his actions on Friday,
 June 5, 1987 and on Saturday, June 6, 1987. The Claimant was
 scheduled to work from 7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. on June 6.
 Around 3:00 p.m. his immediate supervisor directed him to report
 to another supervisor who needed additional help. He followed
 orders and reported to the second supervisor. When he arrived,
 he was told he would have to work overtime until 6:00 p.m.. He
 was further advised he would have to work mandatory overtime the
 following day, which was Saturday.
 The Claimant indicated to the supervisor he did not want to
 work overtime and left. He got into his dump truck even before
 his quitting time and returned to the tool shed. From there he
 left work. The Claimant did not report to work on Saturday.
 After the formal investigation, the Carrier determined the

                            2

                                          9N7- ~3


Employe was guilty of the charges and he was suspended for fifteen (15) days.
 The Claimant argues his position required that he work Monday through Friday with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. However, absent a specific provision in the Agreement, the Carrier retains the prerogative to direct it works force. That includes the right to assign overtime work. This is especially true when the additional work is necessary to maintain the efficient operation of the company. In this case, even if there were a provision in the Agreement which disallowed mandatory overtime, the Claimant was given a direct order not only to work overtime on.Friday, June 5, but, to report to work on June 6. He did neither. His failure to follow a direct order constitutes insubordination. It is even more telling that the Claimant never proffered an excuse for his decision not to work the overtime as directed. As this Board has ruled in the past, if an employe believes a direct order is in violation of the Agreement, he is still obligated to comply with the order, unless it is illegal, unsafe, or totally unreasonable. The employe can then file a claim that the Carrier acted in violation of the Agreement.
 Insubordination is most often considered a cause for discharge. This is especially true where, as here, we have an employe who does not have a lengthy tenure. In view of these two facts, the Board believes the fifteen (15) day suspension was reasonable.

 3
 9117- ~, 3

                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

                            Carol ~e 'ni, Neutral


Submitted:

 May 27, 1988
 Denver, Colorado