C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-08048.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS=AT BOARD Award No. 808 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7881 2-EJ&E-CM-'79

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.

.( System Federation No. 6, Railway Employes'

Department,, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0. Parties to Dispute:. ( (Carmen)

Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

Dispute: Claim of Fmbloyes: 1. That the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, violated Agreement Rules 1, 22, 35, 11-9 and 150 as well as thesr own Bulletin Order No. 10 on February 7, 1977 v,-hen they refuEed to allo~a Carman W. G. Hnetkavsky, hereinafter referred to as ClaLmant, to commence work after reporting to work late an this date, 2. That the Carrier be ariftered to compensate Claimant far a total of two hours and twenty xro__rnztes (2 hrs., 20 rninutes ) pay at the pro rata rate for these violations o Findings: The Second Division of the Adjustment Beard, upon the whole record and a11. the evidence, finds that: The carrier or carriers and the employe or employer involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act- as approved Juice 21, 1934. This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the disp3zte involved herein. Parties to said dispute wai,red right of appearance at hearing thereon. Claimant was employed by Ca:.^rier on August 5, 1976; at the time of the instant dispute he was occupying the position of Temporary Cayman assigned to Carrier's East Joliet, Illinois, Steel Car Shop. Claimant's position was from Monday through Friday with 'sours of 8:00 A.M. to x+:30 P.M. On Friday, January 7, 1977 Claimant reported to work at 9: 40 A.M. informing the foreman that he eras experiencing trouble keeping his truck running on the way to work, thus accounting for his tardiness. He was informed that management had rearranged the work force to protect his work for that day; nevertheless Claimant was instructed to report back to work at 12:30 P.M. that day if he wished to work. Claimant reported at 12:30 P.M. and did work the afternoon portion of his regular shift that day. Form 1 Award No. 8048 Page 2 _ Docket No. 7881 2-EJ&E-CM-'79 The issues in this dis.~to are essentially identical to those presented by the parties in Award 8055 e:~cept for the identity of Claimant and the different dates. The parties' a.rgu..ments are totally analagous to those in the earlier dispute as well. No mitigating circumstances or facts in this dispute warrant a finding or conclusion different than that reached in Award 8045. It should only be noted that it would appear to be wholly unreasonable for Petitioner to expect Carrier to hold a job open all day in the hope that Claimant will appear at some unspecified time and begin working. No operation can be ma,:zaged effectively under such circumstances. It must be noted that in this dispute, as distinct from Award 8045 Claimant did indeed work the second half of his shift. For the reasons indicated in Award 8045 we find that withholding Claimant from working after his t1ardy reporting to work, was not a disciplinary action and did not violate any rules in the sched~,z_le Agreement. A 1^7 A R D Clam denied. NATIOMZ RAILROAD ADJUSTi~'L'~.'TTT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board c. __ By ,/ ----Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant Dated a~ Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of August, 1979.