Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTnTINT BOARD Award No. 738+
SECOND DhTISION Docket No. 7299
?_iv[P_SM_ t 77





Parties to Dispute:




Dispute: Claim of Employes:





Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+·

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



Claimant reported for work 42 minutes late, without prior notice of tardiness to his supervisor. Based on the consideration that a replacement had been called from the overtime roster, claimant was denied the opportunity to work for his assigned tour and was sent home. The Organization cites the following rule excerpts as being violated by the Carrier in this action:








Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 733+
Docket ido. 7299
2-M1'-SiM-177

Rule 32 (a)

"An employe covered by this agreement who has been in service more than 30 days or whose application has been formally approved shall not be disciplined or dismissed without first being given a fair and impartial investigation by an officer of the railroad."

Rule 33

"The Compares will not discriminate against any Committeeman who from time to time represent other employes and will grant them

leave of absence

when delegated to represent other employes."

No basis whatsoever appears for finding violation of Rule 1 or 33. As to Rule 32(a), the Board finds that Carrier's position entirely tenable when it states that sending the claimant home was not disciplinary action, but rather resulted from his reporting late without advance notice, causing the calling in of another employe. As to Rule 17, the portion referred to by the Organization simply grants employes a right to "lay off" where the absence is caused by "sickness or other good cause of which the foreman shall be promptly advised." Even assuming that in this instance the claimant advised his foreman as "promptly" as possible -- that is, by reporting to work -- the rule does not go to the issue as to whether the Carrier is require

to give work to an employe reporting late.

The Carrier's action in calling for a replacement violates no rule. In addition, it was a reasonable act, given the admitted necessity of having a full crew of two of claimant's craft and given claimant's past history of tardiness and "no report'".

Having reported late without advance notification, the Claimant is in a tenuous position to demand, as a right, assignment to hart of 'nis

assigned shift. The Carrier's action did not constitute discipline. Organization has failed to show arty rule violation.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

BY
`~ emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of November, 1977.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTNEEN'I' BOARD

By Order of Second Division


The