Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9374
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9304
 2-CMStP&P-EW-'83
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:
_ That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
 violated the current agreement when it unjustly assessed a thirty day
 deferred suspension with a one year probationary period beginning
 December 26, 1979 on Electrician Dean Dueppen for alleged failure to
 protect his assignment.




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, an Electrician currently employed by the Carrier in the Milwaukee Shops, Milwaukee, Wisconsin was sent a letter by the Carrier notifying him to report for formal investigation on December 26, 1979 to investigate the following charges:











Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 937+
 Docket No. 93o4
 2-CMStP&P-EW-'83

 The investigation on December 26, 1979 resulted in a finding that Claimant did fail to protect his job assignment as charged in the above-quoted charges. A thirty (30) day deferred suspension with a one year probationary period was issued and was withheld unless there should be cause for further discipline by suspension during the ensuing six months.

 The carrier urges us to sustain the discipline because the Claimant admits he was absent for four working days and he failed to call his foreman in accord with Rule #16 of the controlling Agreement . In the main, the Organization makes one major argument: Claimant was not guilty of failing to protect his assignment because he was unavoidably kept from work as a result of illness on the days in question. To the Organization, since Claimant had either "the flu" or a bad back, Claimant had no control over the reason for his absence. Therefore, Claimant was indeed "unavoidably kept from work" in the sense that this Board has on numerous occasions found to be within an employe's rights.

 On this record, it is clear that the Claimant's principal wrong-doing was his failure to notify the Carrier in advance and/or during the period of his absence. No evidence was presented that he was unable to do so if he so desired. Thus, the record shows that the Claimant did not notify his foreman of impending absence or delays as early as possible in violation of Rule #16 of the controlling Agreement. It is clear from the record that the Claimant fully understood the requirements of this Rule and that he had been properly counseled and warned about his attendance record, both verbally and in writing. There was no showing that the 30-day deferred suspension was excessive or arbitrary or inappropariate on the facts of this record.

 The claim is, therefore, denied.

 Claim denied.

 A W A R D
Attest: Acting. Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By 5~-~C/~·~

Da red at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of February, 1983.