Form 1 NATIONAL MILRO~'1.L-) A'DJUSVfeNT BOARD Award No. 8195
 SECOND DI-'IaiON Doc?et No. 61,'?l
 2-BNI-FO-' 7-)

( System Federation No. 7, Railhuy Employee '
 ( Department, A. F . of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Disnu true ( (Fireman _r Oilers)
 (
 ( Burlington Northern Inc.

 Dis~u. t~p ' _ f'.1 ai-t of,~ !'."'1~L0.'JE'S








        NO1 s.alera, I31,_^.. On t'°Jr'.1.eiT'y 15, 3~iO ~ i0 :.rural 16, ]_c.:~3' 1,ZC.'L;~.`.`iti';'.


        2. That, accordingly, ':,_'1'? Burlington Northern, Inc. be o"lared to comp::nsat;J' fr. L, c7, Reinows>i for payIieat of all t7.i:.: lost 3.t the pro rata rate, including fringe b:.' ef 3 t_ , and `,he x:32'% removed from his record.


'~n din~:
The Second Division of the ,d just.:,h^nt '~Oar~1, upon the whole rtecord and all the evidence, finis that:

 The carrier or carriers and -the e~:::.~loye or erc:;~1~zcs involved in -tills dispute are res?ectively carrier and e-r,?l'_)ye °-;ithin ti,c 2anrla of Lne Rai1Pr~iy Labor Act as approv'--,d June 21, 1:3 4.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board x?s jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

    Parties to said dispute waived Z°-3g .!').t of apC)eara.naa at hearing theracn.


The Claimant was assigned as a hostler haiper at the Carrier's Ha':re, Montana Diesel S:on. 'His ho;~rs^, o: cs si,:,-:n:.~nt uer,-~ 3:0.3 P.'.~. to ? 1:C';, P.". This claim inv01 :':?w the Carrier's sl: ponsica of Mi?:'.:11 ` for thirty '~
 U day,-3 as the r °sul t of __n ir:cide:: t which occur rW On MOrb^r 24, 1977. On Valt. date the Claimant died noz arI'i .c at work until 5:10 P,M, two hoih.'s o11CSequent to the starting time of1p:s :x.;51 gnm'.nt.

 By notice date.>d Dcce:~,ber >9, 1977, the Claimant was directed to attencA an investigation an tire charge of alleged failure to protect his assignm2n-t. as a host lei' W%3r, nbsentQ,, Krze"' i .. :'t:_ tn3ut au,ho0 GET, a7:_.. failure to m his dutis> as a laborer u. i d :1 ect'2l by his s up D: vi.Qr on D':e c:"~;C= `,T, 1977.
 Form 1 AT=,tard No. 8195
 Page 2 Docker, No. 61'27.
 2-BNI-FO-' i?

 The investitatiun was held arid the Claimnt eras found to be =7uilty of the charg^s. A suspension o3.' thirty days was ii~oaed as discipline by the Carrier and the Organization has progressed tile claim to this level.

 It is the position of the Organization that the Carrier unfairly suspended Claimant .from service s-:?.CE' 111..°. lateness -gas due to his ba1I1l unavoidably detained as a result of his car being stuck in the sro*a. It is the fU_.i,i er position, of the Org,, wniza ticn that -the rlaira'lt received proper authority t0 b~ excused frC>.m work on tile date in question :;,~'n he becar~-_ ill.

 It is the position of the Carrier that it did not act ,)rbitrarily or capriciously zhen it J_::r_)osed tr:o d:i.scipl a.av on Claimant. I` is t'.-,e f~,Tt'-o-r position of the Carr-i_er that the C13__mwnt eras two I-xours late for :;c:r , ti.at-. he diO, not have pexT,is=lion to be late, wnd that he did not advise the Carrier prior to the scheduled staruin: ti:ra that he ir:;,.xld be lave. Tf~=_'fore, it is the nosition of the Carrier that the Clai;:ant ,-;as in violation of Carrier's Rule c:» which
                m,.starovid<es


          1tEmplo,je, ,~st rc1or tl.T a;- the drrat ited ti·n

          r ~ ,.t ~ ~ No CjU4,; ~ l~ n..si~,r.,_ ~~Jn;t place. They m--otyt^ alert, attentive snd -devote thera selves exclusively to the Co?l~pan;f'u service `.-inila on duty. They must not absent the:%,aeives fro.--q dutv, exchange du`,ies with or sucsti t:a to o thnr s in their plat-~ wiThout pro-er authority. '1


The credible evidence of record su:~por t s the Position of the Carrier. rMnen the Claimant arri v°d at work, a t 3Y roxima tely 5 : r 0 T~ 'rhe `has ass igned the job of w-.shin~ ai- boxes . S=3 he had not been available tc,
                          .,., ., ~e*

fill his orrn a._> >i«,rn:...mt of hos :,.1.F r .. liter, aunothe..r crployee had b~ called
 to fill that nosy t._on on snit overti:r:a bays . ~,;risen the Claii::ant's foreman
 checked on his Taro"ress in corioleting the tasri of viashL1j air boxes he
 found that insufficient ?1e.-^.;,]-.;al Ira,, b~en i:tic bYa:e ula1:::an.. 'At ...':-_S
 time, a discussion between i.loo Clai;:M.nt and his foreman took 1ol ace. irze
 gist Of 'LAcir excna°':f' r=f1'e.~.'~.. ii13~ 'L_:e Clai--- '~`:as r ~~" ` : t
 cfi~nl :>4;, f~i-_. zi:~ assignment of ivsnin-f`'r, air boxes al--d that hr' did not Jar~icularly iris job. It is true, th~it the Cla:i:.~Ant a .le:cfecs. that re `.=.'s:.^, si;:k at the t.mthat he turned in hi,; Oiz3 G'-qv~i and lei 't t!:Carrier's -~)reT"lies. Ho'i:ev"er_
 n i.-t r n (' i - r· ^. ° v ~% `~.'
 the follo'r.l_n'Y t?sti."2=)ny si= s the Carric s charge tC:at t''1.. 1a 3n
 absentoci hi :self fro, n ~,~rork -:~iihout permission and faile.i to perform, x~is
 duties as a laborer:
 A. IT''

 Fozsn 1 Award No. 8195
 Page 3 Docket No. 8121
 2-BNI-FO-' 7')
 "Q. (to Claimant) Mr. Reinowski, when you did get to
 work at 5 o'clock, why did you refuse to wash air
 boxes?
 A. I da_dn't refuse to wash them, I started doing the
 job and I got s ick, I vren t trp to ~,ir. :word (Forem=,xi)
 and I told him I :Vas going hon3. Arid he said that
        I didn't look very sic; so I turned in r.~ time card.


        Q. Did you state to P:1r. Nord that you didn't know wily you should hrrre to wash air boxes.>?


        A. Yes, but I think that zras before I told him I was sick.


                      Q. (to Carrier's Foreman) 1~r. Nord, would you tell me . .. again what wir. Rei ro-;.s,:.;;_ ,;a.Ld -Lo yo-,; ;·;uen ,7ou assigped him to do ills joy?


      A. Well, he didn't say anVthing when I first assigned

        him the job, but after I chec,~ed on his pro,-Irpss and it was ali:ost nil a little bit later w1ien I told him he better c,-et goin, I wanted the ~''ob done, he came over to me at 4 stall office uherc., arid ..anted to I.ow why he should do air bol=es. i ev)laine:j to him that somebody was already protecting h=is job, because he was late, and that there were jobs that had to be done and sow-ebcdy had to do it, and I had all ;kv other laboz°ers ass i incd to different jobs at this tire anti he happened to be Cne-, u-:d he ;vas going to do the

        _~, V n j -

        job, Then 1:.. stated T.rr._G i... .w,a l..n, I uat com-

        mented he didn't looac ven- sick to ire, becaasa he

        didn't. `'i~e:z he said we11, he didn't °razt to do air

        boxes and he was going to go home, he turned in his

        slip and vie-it home."

Form 1
 Page 4

 Award No. 8195
 Docket No. 31:?l
 2-BNI-FO-179

    The totality of the evidence in this caso supports a finding

    ithat the Clamant did not c:-,;;~ly with the rules of the Carrier

since he failed to to a ti:e -;roper st:r:~: to notify the Carrier that
 he would arrive late to his work location. Tho evidence further
 supports a finding that the .a. l a ;',r",
                    Cl ir^ar~-t c,.d rot t. _d to leis duties on

the date in question.

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

NATIQ;IAL YAILTT.O0 ADJUSTi.:NT BQARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Ad AdJustment Board

 `'~riC~.`'i'~T~rl~ L:Ta1sG'h ~ iiCli.nz'
                  Lnis --re tiVG' ASS1StuI1t


Dated at ChicaSo, Illinois, this 28th day of I~tovemaber, 1979e