Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTRrT~IT BOARD Award No. 775+
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7e42
 2-MP-EW-'78



Parties to D ispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
 __ (
 ( Missouri. Pacific Railroad Company

 Dispute: ~Cla,i:n of Empl_oyes-I










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 arid employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193-E .

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

On June 2?_, 1976, Cla:i.r,:ant, an employe of Carrier's automated Iv,,Iheel Shoe in North Li the Rock, a,r;p.roached his foreman shortly after his tour of duty began and requested that y he be trrrni.tted to be off beginning at 12: 30 p.m. that afternoon. This foreman, in accordance with stand.-ing instructions at North Little Roc's, advised Cla:i_z.ia,nt he did riot have the authority to pcrmit his absence and referred him to the General -Fors:;~an of the Shop, T.?r. T:wsre~a.;;cart. Claimant did not ap,pxoac:h Mir. -Daven.ro,rt uwci.l 3_1:1j a.tn. to ash,
 s-~^n::::,~i.on
 to be absent that aftE.rnoon, then ^ ,.estiorzed rriu,>- he des irc:d to b,D o::'_f',
 Claimant stead.fa.svl, 1:-efused to dimkl`;e the basis of 1W s recTuest ;,xcc:.ni~
 that it v;as far .persoua.l business. >>s a consequence, and because C1air.:a.nt
 eras needed to rernaiza. at his assi-grinent to finish up a project, the General
 Foreman refztsed his request.
 Form 1 Award No. 7 754
 Page 2 Docket No. 764?_
 2-MP-Fw-' 78
 The emoloye contends that in refusing Claimant _pernission to lay off,
 Carrier violated the following rules:






There are two key issues raised here - (1) Did referral of the rnwtter here to the General Foreman violate F;lale 17 and (2) Did tine refusal of Claimant's request to lay off violate Rule 16 (c)?

 First, ire do not -chink that the referral of this matter to the General Foreman violated Rule 17. 1Tndex Carrier's orcranizational chart, the foreman re
 ported 'to tire General Fore.c:an, and, in reality, the aut.'_~or:i.ty for such lay offs, by -,,-ell _ estahl fished. practice at; iTox°th Little -.Rock, was vested with the General I'ore_man. Tivs, for purposes of applying the a.g;oeement, the General Foreman eras Cla.zr:ant's fore:m?n. The intent of .Rule 17 is to dive employes reasonable and expedient access to a supexnrisor for purposes of seeking ,permission to lay off, and., under the facts and circumstances of this case, the rule was not violated. However, we would caution that application of the rule could, in some circumstances, be carried too far by management - in which case we :night take a different view.

 Secondly, in discussing whether the refl:sal of Claim-ant's reciuest violated Rule 16 (c), we wish to point out a principle well established by this Board, and that is that every em,y~loye has a duty and obligation to .report timely for his assignment and to ~:rox1L all the hours of his wssign;7?ent each and every day it works unless his absence is vaZ_ ~.dl.y justified and excused for good and sufficient reason such as i?_il.ne;ss, death of a family member o;? other matters wi,.ich, in applying the xa?_e of common sense and hurian understand-in."", would clearly justify his absence. Under the agreement, tire managerent is obliged to consider such recYUe sts arid to grant them if they meet the c,riL~e r:i.~. d.a_SC11cSed above, and, conversely,, there :LS n0 Obl:i.gat iC?n t0 grant such requests if they do not meet the criteria. lluvever, just as the agreement ap_:1:i_es a test of reasonableness and cooveratr.on Lyon .:!ana,-_ernent; it also reqvitc-s that the employes tr:v.ly ?.a·ro rood and surf :i-dent reasons for their re"_v?;:S"U,
A short, L1nE.X~--I..,_..t'_ .d re,, uC^ si, based »i._~Wii 1_?erSO,-,::la1 business" does, riot neE,'u
 tYte test - it is too brief and too bread for management to objectively
 evaluate.
 Form l Award No. 77511
 Page 3 Docket No. 761+2
 2-MP-EW-' 78
In applying these principles to this case, ire find that we axe unable to evaluate Claimant's xeqv.est because it was too value and broad. However, we have set forth our opinion of the meaning and intent of' the agree~~,n` to use in future such ci,rc,a;nstances, and, while we have no statutory authority to order Carrier from applying the xmles improPexly (as the statement of
claim seems to request of us), we can consider any such future incidents in
 light of what we have said here.
 A W A F; D


                          BST Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretar,y
 National Railroad Adjustznent Board

          ·,..


      .s~ N*

      4'T~: paa..urur~ r:.e.'.`" ~ :G-~e:E Y

      ~;.


13y ilyeiS' _ y _~. ·.:~ C'".e' ~. t~;;~r.~ar ,,~ .:.~ ~^ ~ !''~ ... e ; _ . r . ~.'~'·^i

      ,;-_ , _.r-a;: _.r,- ,._'" __ _.,, ::: . aa `.:ia~£~.

      °- , . r a_

    .LO`·`eIPa11e b,C'aSCl2 - i ~'raa_Y~1bT.~'..,~.:.VC: Sf~7_S~dYll.


Dated Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of November, 1974.