BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE )
 OF WAY EMPLOYES )
 AWARD NO. 134
 and ) CASE NO. 134
 NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL )
 OPERATIONS, INC. )

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
The Organization requests that the discipline assessed to Mr. G. Adigbli be expunged from his record, and that he be made whole for all financial losses suffered in connection with this discipline.

 FINDINGS:
Special Board of Adjustment No. 956, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and that the parties to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing and did participate therein.

 The case arose as a result of an incident that occurred on New Year's Eve, December 31, 2005. The weather was inclement that day. Claimant worked his regular shift from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. under Track Supervisor Ruiz in Hoboken. Towards the end of the shift, it was snowing heavily. Track Supervisor Ruiz was instructed by Line Engineer Smith to hold over the employees on duty and bring in several additional employees to clear the snow.

 Claimant agreed to stay. He was among a crew of seven employees who worked overtime to salt and remove the snow over the next three or four hours. By that time, the snow had stopped.

 At approximately 8:00 p.m., Line Engineer Smith contacted Supervisor Ruiz and told him that the employees were needed to cover snow duty on the Gladstone Line, where it was still snowing. Six of the seven employees refused to go, despite Line Engineer Smith's admonition that they would be taken out of service for insubordination. Claimant was among those who refused to go to the Gladstone line. He was removed from service and, after an investigative hearing, he was issued a thirty day suspension.
 S.B.A. No. 956 Award No. 134
 Page 2 Case No. 134

 Insubordination in this industry, and others, is universally viewed as a most serious offense. The necessity of complying with rules or directives issued by supervision is so well-established that no citation is needed for this fundamental proposition. If an employee is aggrieved by the instructions of a supervisor, he is obligated to comply now and grieve later. An employee who disregards the instructions of supervision does so at his own peril.

 From the Carrier's viewpoint, the Claimant's insubordination was an the more egregious because it was part of a concerted action by a group of employees who refused to obey Line Engineer Smith's instructions. The Organization takes a different view, and argues that the record demonstrates that there was a genuine discrepancy between the orders originally given by first line supervisor Ruiz and the subsequent directives issued by Line Engineer Smith.

 There are occasions when mitigating or extenuating circumstances should be considered in disciplinary matters. This is one such instance. The record developed at the investigation clearly shows that there was a conflict between Supervisor Ruiz and Line Engineer Smith as to the overtime expectations at this facility. Employees were, in effect, given a mixed message as to what was expected of them in terms of overtime requirements. The situation as a whole suggests that this muddled direction contributed to the events that took place on December 31, 2005.

 Added to the balance is the fact that there is no evidence that Claimant had any sort of disciplinary record with the Carrier. On the contrary, Supervisor Ruiz testified that this crew, including the Claimant, is comprised of valued, hard working employees who generally work a considerable amount of overtime.

 After careful consideration of all these material factors, the Board finds that the thirty day suspension was excessive and that a three day suspension would be a sufficient penalty for the misconduct charged. It is so ordered.
 S.B.A. No. 956 Award No. 134
 Page 3 Case No. 134






Carrier a ber Di~se,,~-t- Organization ember

 Dated this day of , 2006.