Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7782
 SECOTTD DIVISION Docket No. 7623
 2-MP-CM- ' 79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:




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 ox employes involved in this dispzte axe respectively carrier and emlojre within the meaning of the Raihaay Labor Act as approved June 21, 19 3T+.

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

Claimant Carman, on January 2.5, 1976 was filling a vacation job in Carrier's Kansas City departure yard. The assigned hours of such job were 7;00 a.m. to 3:CO P.m.

 Claimant failed to report for his job at 7:00 a.m. on January 25, 1976. A Cam an i;~as called therefor from the overtime board at 7:20 a.m. to replace Claimant.

 Claimant phoned the General Car Foreman about 7:x+0 a.m. to advise that he wotiLd be late. Claimant was advised that another man had been called in his place, that lie should not come in and that he would not be permitted to work. Claimant ;>hovred up for his assigrznent after 8:00 a.m.., but was not permitted to zwrk. C1a:~znunt here seeks 6 1/2 hours nay pro rata fox not being penni-tted to zaox<_ his assignment on January 25, 1976.
 Form 1 Award No. 7782
 Page 2 Docket No. 7623
 2-MP-CM-t79

 The Employees argue that Claimant complied with agreement Rule 17 by calling his Foreman to inform him that he would be late, that thereafter Claimant lived up to his part of Rule 17 and xepox~t,ed to protect his job. They allege that by sending Claimant home Carrier hE~.d violated Rule 32(a).







The Board finds that Claimant was not being disciplined when he was not perm-Itted to work his assign_uent on January 25, 19?6, after reporting thereto almost an hour and one half after its scheduled starting tine. The Agreelment requires Carrier to establish. remv1_ar jabs with rev;1·Iar scheduled hours. The Emplo;;ree who taz:cs one of suet? regular jobs thereby incurs an obligation and duty to protect same by reporting on time thereto. The success of Carrier's operations axe predicated on the: necessary number of employees productively woxitin and carrying out their assigned duties within the prescribed scheduled hours.

 Here, Carrier concluded, as of 7:20 a.m., that the number of authorized, trains requiring pre-departure inspection and air tests were such that C1aLnant's job had to be imrlediately filled. Carrier, because of Claimant's failure to call, had no knowledge at that particular time whether Claimant would ever show up. Hence, Carrier was put to an unnecessary expense by being required to call in a caiman from the overtime Board in order to protect its operations.

 Claimant had no contractual claim to his assignment on January 25, 1976 after he failed to timely- xenon thereto. He also failed to timely notify his foreman a» to his absence and the reasons therefor. Claimant had been gut on pro ?~er notice at 7: 40 a.m. that another man had. been called in his place. The prevailing circumstances at that time voided any possible use of Claimant.

 Rule 17 provides no support whatsoever fox the instant claim. Said Rule concerns itself solely with an e~.nploye's obligation re-lative to his laying off. Such was not here involved. This Division,, in its Awards 7384 and. 7385 (P:1a=.), denied ci_a3.ms on this property involving similar situations and the same rules.