Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. v
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9265
 2-BN-CM-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edward M. Hogan when award was rendered.
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: and Canada

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.

Claimant was assessed a three (3) day suspension following a formal investigation on the charge that the Claimant violated Rule 667 of the Carrier. This rule outlines the procedure for employees to notify the Carrier in case of absences due to sickness. The record indicated that the Claimant stated during the investigation that he did not understand the requirements to call in daily, but that the rule requiring him to do so was not difficult to understand. The record also indicated that the Claimant admitted that he did not call in on the day in question.

 To alleviate the problem with respect to absenteeism at the Carrier's facility, the Carrier established a requirement to have all employees report in, on a daily basis, to their foreman if they would be absent from duty. Claimant received a copy of the rule in December, 1979. The Board finds that this is not an unreasonable procedure and does not conflict with any Agreement rule.
 Form 1
 Page 2

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By

Dated = Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of Apr=1, 1982.

 Award No. x'06^
 Docket No. 9265
 2-BN-CM-182

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division







The majority erred in reaching a conclusion inconsistent with the facts of record. The Majority referred to Rule 667 which is a Carrier Safety Rule and further stated as follows:
This is a gross misunderstanding on the Majority's part as Burlington Northern Safety Rule reads as follows:
It is very apparent that the above quoted rule makes no requirement on Claimant's part to call in daily if sick. What the Carrier did was to issue a bulletin No. 329, dated August 10, 1979. You will note that the Carrier quotes Burlington Northern Safety Rule 665 and also Rule 16 of the Current Agreement. It is apparent that Rule 665 is not applicable in the instant dispute, assuming arguendo if it was applicable. We find no where in the Safety Rule No. 665 that would require the Claimant to call in daily. The facts are undisputed, the claimant called in sick on Friday, February 8, 1980 in compliance with Rule 16(e). On Monday, he called in before the end of the shift to report
 DISSENT OF LABOR MEMBERS
 TO AWARD 9066,DOCKET 9265
that he would be back to work on Tuesday, February 12, 1980. This was in compliance with Rule 16(e). He was held off the job the 12th in lieu of getting a statement from the doctor. He did get a statement from the doctor that he was, in fact, sick. Further, the Majority never took into consideration that the Claimant called in Monday, February 11, 1980 to report for work on Tuesday, February 12, 1980. The Carrier denied him an opportunity to work by stating that he had to see a doctor before returning the 12th. He could not get an appointment with the doctor until 3:30 P.M. on February 12, 1980. He relayed this information back to the Carrier and it was agreeable with the Carrier that he would be absent February 12, 1980 with the Carrier's permission.
 We call your attention to Page 12, where the Investigating Officer, Mr. Moline answers the Local Chairman's question in regard to a man having to report in every day in regard to the flu and he states as follows:
 "Unless the man knows that his flu is going
 to extend for two days, or three days, or four
 days..."
 How does a man know how long the flu will hang on. It could be
 a day or a week or more and that is why we have Rule 16 (f)
 in the Current Agreement. How could the Majority disregard a-ll
 schedule rules and instead hang their hat on Carrier's form SC-61
 which is nothing more than a flexible tool in the hands of
 incompetent administrators who use it only on selective basis
 DISSENT OF LABOR MEMBERS
 TO AWARD 9066,DOCKET 9265
for self serving purposes.

 It was never brought to the General Chairman's attention nor did it-have his authorization nor is there any place on this form that the Claimant or his Local Chairman signed showing that they received a copy of such form. Even if they did sign such form as being received by them, the Carrier circumvented Rule 16 of the Current Agreement. Further, such form SC-61, is nothing more than a self-serving statement by Mr. McClain or whoever would be in his position.



paragraph, reading as follows:

This is not a true statement and was addressed in organization's submission on Page 7 that this so-called invalid Unilateral SC-61 Form was only imposed on a few employees.
                _ 4 _ TO AWARD 9066,DOCKET 9265


Therefore, Award No. 9066 is palpably erroneous for the above stated reasons. Accordingly, the Labor Organization Members dissent:

                                P 7001


                          J. C. Clementi


                            k '


                                      wx~


                          M. J. ;Cu llen


D. A. Hampton

                    h


Z
 . A. McAteer

          i

lopo. 240

 R. A. Westbrook