SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7184
 v




                    ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.

      Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


                    ( St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company


      Dispute: Claim of Employes:


            1. That the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company violated the controlling agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it posted notices to all Mechanical Department Employees changing the provisions of Rule 15 of the controlling agreement.


            2. That the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Coma ny violated the provisions of Article V of the August 21, 1954 General Agreement.


            3. That accordingly the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company be ordered to withdraw the notices of August 22, 1973 and October 30, 1974.


      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, 1934.


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


        Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


      This dispute comes to us as a result of Carrier's posting of notices at its Pine Bluff, Arkansas shops which, in substantive part, read as follows:


            ,'ABSENTEEISM HAS BECOME A SERIOUS PROBLEM


            The Schedule Agreement provides as follows:


            'Employes shall not lay off from work without first obtaining permission from their Foreman to do so, except in case of sickness, or for other good reason, in which case the Foreman shall b e advised as early

                                                      I


Form 1 Award No. 7632
 Page 2 Docket No. 7184
 2-ST,SW-CM-' 78
 'as possible. When able to return to work, the employee
 shall notify his Foreman in advance in sufficient time
 that proper arrangements can be made.'
 In order to curtail the unreasonable amount of absenteeism,
 and in compliance with the above agreed rule, when desiring
 to lay off an employee must contact his inmediate supervisor
 or the General Foreman in charge and state his reason
 therefor. The supervisor or General Foreman will determine
 whether the reason is valid and either grant or deny
 permission to be absent. In the event the employee is
 physically unable to notify the proper authority, employee
 will do so as quickly as possible, or have someone notify
 the proper authority as quickly as possible.
 When reporting back for duty, the employee must report
 to his supervisor, or the General Foreman in charge, before
 the close of his assigned shift the day before he will
 return, due to the fact that his position may already be
 filled.
 F. D. KREBS
 SUPERINTENDENT"

 We note from the statement of claim that there is no request for any compensation and that the employes have framed their statement of claim ,requesting us to determine the validity of the above quoted notice in light of the provisions of Rule 15 of the agreement between the parties quoted within the text of Superintendent Krebs' notice. Within that framework, we will. consider the dispute.

 Firstly, we find that the grievance, as handled between the Manager of Personnel and the General Chairman, is free of any procedural irregularities.

 Secondly, turning to the merits of the matter, we observe that the employes take exception to the last paragraph of the disputed notice which requires that employes reporting back for duty must report to one of the designated Carrier officials before the close of his assigned shift the day before he plans to return. Carrier's basis for promulgating the notice, and the last paragraph thereof, was because employes were engaging in excessive absenteeism at Pine Bluff which Carrier wished to deter.'

 This Board has repeatedly recognized the serious problem created by absenteeism in the railroad industry. (Awards 1814, 5049 and 6240, Second Divisaon). We have also recognized that each employe has an obligation and a duty to report to work on time and work his scheduled hours, unless he has good and sufficient reason to be late, to be absent or to leave early. Those reasons must be supported by competent and acceptable evidence.
 Form 1 Page 3

Award No. 7632

Docket No. 7184

2-SLSW-CM-'78


(Second Division Award 6710). Therefore, we cannot fault management for taking steps to correct an absenteeism problem.

 Rule 15 of the agreement, here in dispute, was drafted with the intention that reasonableness on both sides would prevail when an employe sought to return to work following an absence. The rule was also written for the protection of other employes who, under other rules of the agreement or procedures, might be filling a temporary vacancy or rearranging on a position occasioned by the absence of a fellow employe. Likewise, the rule also protects the Carrier's right to plan and arrange its work.

 Under certain conditions, it may well be that an employe would have to report to his foreman before the close of his assigned shift the day before he will return so that proper arrangements can be made to place the employe back on his job. However, under other conditions, where no one is filling an employe's vacancy, it may well be possible for the employe to report at a later time. And, conversely, if an employe has been absent due to sickness or injury for a protracted period, it may well be that a period longer than 16 hours would be required to make proper arrangements for the employe's return to work. Whatever the situation may be, it is obvious that the rule places upon the employe,the obligation to be cognizant of the status of his particular situation so that when he does assert a desire to return to work, he can notify his foreman "in advance in sufficient time" so that the proper arrangements can b e made.

 Summarily, we think the framers of the agreement had such factors and examples in mind when they reasonably concluded that an employe, when able to return to work:

 "...shall notify his Foreman in advance in sufficient time that proper ariangements can b e made."

 Given this general background, we believe the parties can logically and reasonably apply the agreement. To the extent that Carrier's notice attempts to place a blanket, specific reporting time of an employe wishing to return to work following absence, it is in error.

 A W A R D

 Claim disposed of as indicated in our opinion.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 semaxla xasc - amims xa ive Assis an

 Dated ~.t Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July, 1978.