Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 71+79
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7313
 2-BTTqz-CM-' 78



I --Ia~ (Cannen)
 ties to Disrute:


Dispute: Claim of Enployes:



Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record an,-',. all the evidence, f'irds that-

 The carrier oz carriers and the employ-e ox e:npaoZres involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and. employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved tune al, 1934.

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

Claimant Samuel Cordon's scheduled reporting tune is 7: 00 a.m. On Saturday, May 2_4, 1975, Claimant called his foreman at 7: 45 a.m. to advise him that he was detained from work on account of personal business.

 Since his position could not be filled, he was told to report and did so at 8:25 a.m.

 On that same day, a letter was sent to Claimant to appear at a formal. investigation on Jane 9 as to his responsibilit;; fox failure to report for duty at the designated time and place as pxescoibeci under Rule 665 of the Carrier's Safety Rules. Following the hearing, on July 1, 1975, an entry of censure was placed in claimant's per sorGal record.

 Petitioner's claim is to have the ensure removed, on the grounds that Claimant complied with the provisions of aale 16(e) o' the Agreement:
 Foxrn 1 Award. No. 779
 Page 2 Docket No. 7313
 2-Blue-CM-t 78
 "(e) An employee detained from work on account of
 sickness ox for any other good cause shall notify
 his foreman as early as possible."

 Petitioner and Carrier, on the record, held opposing views as to the primacy and relevance of Carrier's Rule 665 and Rule l6(e) of the labor Agreement.

 Petitioner also raised as an issue certain procedural defects 9.n that the hearing officer preferred 'the charge, conducted the investigation and issued the decisicu. We do not agree that this constitute-s reversible error, based on the record in this case.

 Petitioner halr_s that Pale 16(e) supersedes Rule 665 and that Claimant complied with Rule 16(e ) when ho called. his foxenan and was awi;r!oxized to report for work. l:'emr:i;;sion to come to i.ToY°k, it i s maintained, constitute:; "proper authority" as required by the x!zl es.

 Carrier, on the other hard, asseri:.s that the chaxf_;e was based on rlonco.npliance with Rule 665, and not male 16(e); Ln.d that it has a right to establish and enforce rules for the protection and sa,fEty of ~~-as se_v~;ors, shJ_hpers. or_p1_oyees and cor::x~.r?~ property. Carrier construes ;~,.L~.e 16(e) as an ad~-n:i.n_strati.-ve rule, ~v;i_ach requires e_~:rloyr:es to -aotii- their 7orer_-:ar: prio?~ to the sta,rt:LnL,, tine of thoii~ shift so that a replacement can be secured beT'o~e the shift starts. Rule 16(e), in its view, does not excuse
 an employee's resx:orzsibility to get to ~rox.'~ on time.

 At the hearing, Claimant's foreman acknowledged that Claimant had followed standard procedure ~~rhen he realized he would be late in reporting fox work, and that he had contact,ed the car f oxeman as required by the agreement. The Hearing Officer (Transcript, p. 21) confirmed the foreman's statement.

 We find that Claimant did call in to report his tardiness as soon as he was able; that no ore else was called to work in his place; that he was told to report for work and did so. We axe of the opinion that Claimant complied. with the rules and that the entry of censure is not warranted under the circumstances herein described, and should be removed from his personal record.






Attest: Executive Secretary
 ~,-...t;i.ons::L Railroad A&-astnnbut Board
 ...--- °" .~

                  _.jFs..,._ _ ~y~ ..,y..f.~-. ~.§:." G1_,~c'__._

~V~'..~- 1:'L`....;p l:'1 J - _ _ . i.::.Lii'i.:i"iu.'.w. V __Y L: _ :~ :p7_.:Oei,r1O
Dated at Chicago, arllinois, thz.s _^·_).+.th day of February, l978.