Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9327
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9317
 2-I&N-CM-`82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein 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, 193+.

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

Claimant entered Carrier's service as a Cayman Helper on August 14, 1974 at its Lafayette, Indiana shops. Claimant was upgraded to a Cayman on September 16, 197+, and was working in that capacity on the date of the incident giving rise to this claim.

 On September 19, 1979, Claimant failed to show up for work. The Carrier takes the position that Claimant did not call in and report the reason why he could not be at work that day.

 On September 20, 1979, Carrier's Assistant Master Mechanic sent Claimant a letter notifying him to report for formal investigation on October 3, 1979, stating:
 F orm 1 Pa ge 2

 Award No. 9327
 Docket No. 9317
 2-h&N-CM-'82

"You are charged with being absent from your assignment

on Wednesday, September 19, 1979 without permission."


The investigation, scheduled for October 3rd, was postponed to October 4, 1979. As a result of the investigation, Claimant was assessed a thirty (30) day actual suspension from October 28, 1979 through November 27, 1979.

 The Organization argues that Claimant was unjustly dealt with when he was assessed a thirty (30) day suspension for being "absent" one day and that such action on the part of the Carrier violated Rules 36 and 37 of the controlling Agreement, which read as follows:

 "Rule 36
Employee who has been in the service of the Railroad thirty (30) days shall not be dismissed for incompetency, neither shall an employee be discharged for any cause without first being given an investigation."

 "Rule 37
If it is found that an employee has been unjustly discharged or dealt with, such employee shall be reinstated with full pay for all time lost."

 Claimant alleges that he had had an infected throat six to thirteen days prior to September 19th. On the property, the Claimant submitted a statement from Claimant's physician that Claimant had appointments in the physician's office on September 6th and September 13, 1979. Claimant further alleges that on September 19th, the day in question, his wife called the Carrier's office but, "she couldn't get through". The record shows no contradiction that this occurred; on the property, however, there was no contention by the Claimant or the Organization that Claimant personally contacted or made an effort to advise the Carrier of his absence from work nor was there any communicated request for permission to be off.

 It is the position of the Organization that Claimant was not well on September 19th, had lingering effects from the "infected throat", lived away from town, without a telephone and no neighbors who lived nearby that had a telephone. Therefore, the Organization argues that Claimant complied with the requirements of Rule 21 of the Agreement when he was not coming to work. The record shows no contradiction that Claimant was absent without permission on the day in question.

 With this as factual background for the event in question, the Board finds, as in previous awards, that there is an obligation on the employee to protect the Carrier's service on the days he is assigned to work. (See this Division's Awards in Nos. 6710 and 8216. Despite the charges and counter-charges contained in this record, it is clear that the issue here is not whether Claimant's excuse was good cause for being absent from work, but whether Claimant fulfilled his obligation to inform the Carrier and receive permission to lay-off. The
 Form 1 Award No. 9327
 Page 3 Docket No. 9317
 2-L&N-CM-' 82

 excuse of no telephone and an unverifiable attempt to contact the Carrier is not sufficient to justify Claimant's failure to show up for work on the disputed day and the fact that he did not report the reason why he could not be at work on September 19th.

 Therefore, on the merits, the Board is satisfied that there was substantive: evidence to support a thirty (30) day suspension. As was said in this Division's Award 1323:

The Carrier has also taken the position that the claim should be dismissed inasmuch as the Local Chairman failed to advise the Master Mechanic that his decision was rejected as required by Rule 58-1/2. As we have denied the claim on its merits, it is not necessary to pass upon this point. However, we do note: that the provisions of Rule 58-1/2 are mandatory.




        Attest: Acting Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


B '$
 y
    Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of December, 1982.