Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7753
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 76+1
2-BTdI-BM-'78

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee James I''. Scearce when award was ,rendered.

( System Federation No. 7, Railway Employes'

Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0.
Parties to D:isput.e: ( (Boilermakers)
(
Burlington Northern Inc.
Dispute: Claim of

1. That, in violation of the current agreements, Boi1e>_n:a.kex W. B. Brea?;ey vras unjustly dealt with, when on date of October :1.), 176, the Carrier assessed a ten (10) day disciplinary suspension ffO=a the service Of -tine Carrier.

2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to make the Claimant whole, compensate him for all lost time as a result of the unjust suspension, and the ,record. of the suspension be removed from his personal record.

Findings:

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

The carrier ox' 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 dzspite
involved herein.

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

The record shows that on September 10, 176, Claimant left his assignment as Boilermaker Welder at 8:30 a.m. after being on duty for an hour and a half in ,response to a cast. alerting him to the illness of his sister. His immediate supervisor not being readily available, Claimant "left word" with a felloca employee, although other members of supervision were in the area. Tie cited the emergency nature a7:, the situation as the impetus for his abru-ot departure. An investigation was held and thereafter the Claimant was assessed a ten-day suspension fad: absenting himself from work without .prope:r authority.

The Union contends the investigation was pro forma,, since the Gavier hQ.

already determinedwtile Claizn:urzt=s gv.'1t, and that the Carrier',,; basis for discipline -- the Ca_a:imarit's failure to receive proper authority -- was a "mere technicality", considering the uneryency nature of the situation.
Form 1 Award No. 7753
Page 2 Docket No. 76T+1
2-BNI-BM-'l8

We find nothing untoward in the conduct of the investigation to support the Organization's claim. It is clear that the Claimant left his assigz~.ment without notification to supervision of his need to do so and without a._pprovel in that regard. Adhel-ence to proper and, in this case, clearly reasonable notification pfocedures hardly qualifies as a mere technicality-. Tiie entire superior/subordinate relationship of the industrial process is predicated upon proper co=nication.

Having determine. the Carrier's decision to issue discipline is proper here,, we find no reason to upset the level of such discipline.

A W A R D

Claim is denied,

TvTATTONAL RAIT-,POAD ADJUSTMEITT BOA-RD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive - Secretary
National Eai1road Adjustment Board

' ts~. ,.

~^ ,.¢ ., _v~` .'" ·,~ - - a.~.n

owl

BY ~ . _ . ~.,; _

'I-k~se?:~ax·ae !3rasch - t~dministx~avIve Assist-ant

Date(at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of November, 178.