Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8435
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8129
2-BNI-EW-'80
The SCCOTld Division consisted of the regular members and in
additio» Referee Ceorge S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 7, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. T. 0.
Parties to Dispute: (Electrical Workers)



Dispute: Claim of Employes:





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 and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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



The pivotal question in this dispute is whether or not Claimant was authorized to report to work on July 5, 1978 after having informed Carrier early that day that he would not be available for service because of an injury. When he later appeared at the work situs at 2:30 P.M. about one (1) hour before his regularly assigned shift ended, he was directed by his immediate foreman, William Graf to obtain work authorization from the office. Claimant contends that he was asked to get a late slip which, in fact, he did secure, while Carrier argues that he was asked to obtain authority to work. Moreover, Claimant asserts that since he had worked thirty (30) minutes before the General Foreman removed him, he was entitled to eight (8) hours holiday compensation as per the terms of Section 3 of Appendix D of the Nonoperating National Holiday Agreement.

In reviewing this claim, we agree with Carrier that Claimant wasn't properly authorized to return to work. The foreman would not permit him to work until. he received "authorization" from the office which only the General Foreman or the Assistant General Foreman could authorize and did not convey an implicit under-
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 8435

Docket No. 8129

2-BNI-EW-'80


standing that a routine late slip was sufficient. The clerk was not empowered to render such a determination and merely handed him a late slip on the assumption that Foreman Craf requested it. The General Foreman promptly removed him when he learned Claimant was working and lie was the employer official, under these circumstances, who could have approved Claimant's request. The Rules Agreement does not preclude Carrier from withholding work from an employee who was previously laid off for reason and Claimant acted to his detriment when he did not obtain "appropriate" authorization. To be sure, the facts herein are distinguishable from a situation where a person reports to work a few minutes late after normal reporting time. But this is not the case before us. Claimant was not expected to report to work at all that day and it wasn't unreasonable when his foreman requested him to obtain authorization. The foreman's acceptance of a routinely issued late slip did not meet this test. Carrier was well within its grounds when it withheld work from Claimant and his thirty (30) minutes work did not create a de facto correlative right that entitled him to eight (8) hours holiday pay and/or .5 of one hour for regularly assigned service. The record clearly shows that he was not authorized to work on July 5, 1978 and thus we must deny the claim.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By

osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Date Jat Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of August, 1980.