Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJITSTMEIV'T BOARD Award No. 7889
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7809
 2-SLSF-CM-'79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

 Dispute: Claim of 1unbloyes:



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

 The carrier or carriers and the e."rploye ox employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 19311.

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

Upgraded Carman Apprentice T. J. Callaway was assigned to the x.2:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. shift. On October 8, 1976, at 9:45 p.m.,, he called to report off due to illness for the shift beginning 12:O1 a.m.,, October 9.. He talked with the Foreman of Inspectors then on duty, who did not grant permission but told Callaway that he would have to call the General Car Foreman to receive such permission. Callaway then celled the General Car foreman's home and found that he eras not there. He then left a message concerning his absence with the General Car Foreman's wife. This message was apparentlj delivered in some form., to the General Car Foreman. Callaway did not make a further cal 1 to the Car Foreman ~~ino was on duty from 11 P.m. to 7 a.m. When CallaS~ray reported for work on the following night, October 10, he was refused permission to go to work. The Carrier states that permission was refused under the provisions of Rule 22, which reads as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 7889
 Page 2 Docket Xb. 7808
 2-SLSF-CM-' 79
 "An employe detained from work on account of sickness or
 :For any other good cause shall notify his foreman as
 early as possible.
 An employe returning to work shall report not later than
 the working hours of his regular shift the day previous
 to his return."

 The Carrier claims that Callai-ray failed to call in on October g to report that he would be returning to work or. October 10, as it alleges is required by the Rule; therefore, Callaway was denied permission to stork on October 10.
the particular facts herein. This is not a disciplinary matter, since
 discipline given to Callaway for his _absence on October 9 is not before the
 Board for resolution, the issue is solely wue~her the Carrier properly denied
 Callaway the right to work on his r egular shift on October 10 when he presented
 himself for duty in the usual manner..

 As to the first paragraph of Rule 22, the Board finds CaL1azi-ay to have been in compliance. The Rule states that notification shall. be made to "his" foreman "as early as possible". Logically, if an employe such report "as early as possible", then his fore:?'an may not yet be en duty; thus, a repott to the foreman en the previous shift (as ,_n this case) does not seem unreasonable. (If an employe waited to report to his foreman, the notification would hardly be "as early as possible").

 The Foreman who did speak to Callaway did not grant permission for absence but told Callaway to call the General Car Forerian. Callaway testified at his investigative hearing that he was advised to call the General Car Foreman "at home", a not illogical inference at 9: 45 P.m. Callaway complied. The General Car Foreman's wife took the call. She did not refuse to accept the message nor refer Callaway to where her husband could be reached. Instead, she accepted the message, according to Callaway's uncontradicted testimony.

 There is evidence that under normal circ?wistances the foreman on duty at 9:x-5 P.M. would have accepted the call and granted or ?withheld permission for absence. The Carrier, however, apparently has special safeguards at certain times, as indicated by the foreman's testimony:





Form 1 Award No. 7889
 page 3 Docket No. 7809
 2-SLSF-CM-' 79
A11 this, however, is simply background to the particular dispute before the Board. The Carrier states that under the second paragraph of Rule 22 Calaway was obliged to call in a gain during his absence on October 9 to state specifically that he would return on October 10. Callaway, however, claims that, in talking both to the foreman at 9:'~5 P.m. and to the General Car Foreman's wife (who accepted the message), that he eras reporting off for one day only, namely October 9. If this is true, then Calla-vra.y did ccanply with the second paragraph of Rule 22, in that he specified his titre of return. to work "no later th~a,n" the previous shift to his return. The Rule does not say that an employe must report only "during" the previous shift.

 The Carrier draws the conclusion that Callaway s-jsnxay reported off sick without specifying a time of return, but has no proof that this occurred. In view of Callaway's timely report to the foreman on duty and them his follow up to the General Car Foreman as directed by the fore-nan on duty, it is not unreasonable to accept his version that he was reporting off' sick for one shift (hardly a unique situation among employes in general).

 Under these c9,rcu.~atances (and quite apart from discipline for absence on October 9, not, at issue here), it is an :LYnproper interpretation of Rule 22 to have denied Callarr~.y the night to work on October 10.






Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjust?rent Board

        ca ! f''.e5,ir° f !


    ,~sema,rie Drasch - Adam-ln'Lu'Urative Assistant


Dated Chicago, Illinois> this 4th day of April, 1979.