Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10927
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10626
 2-SSR-MA-'86
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Jonathan Klein when award was rendered.

 ( International Association of Machinists
 ( and Aerospace Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Seaboard System Railroad

 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 employes 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.

In November, 1982, the Claimant was employed as a Machinist at Carrier's Tampa, Florida facility known as the Uceta Shops. Sometime during the Spring of 1982, Claimant assumed the position of pastor in a local Pentecostal Church. Claimant received no compensation for the services he rendered to the members of the church and church services were conducted in Claimant's home.

 Through a series of force reductions and bumping of other employes in accordance with the seniority provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, not clearly documented by the record, Claimant was scheduled to work the
 Form 1 Award No. 10927
 Page 2 Docket No. 10626
 2-SSR-MA-'86
second shift from 3:30 P.M. - 11:30 P.M. with Tuesday and Wednesday as his consecutive rest days at the time this Claim arose. Due to a conflict between his work schedules and church related activities, the evidence shows that Claimant was absent from his shift without permission on three separate Sundays, November 7, 14 and 28, 1982.

 A careful review of the record reveals the presence of sufficient credible evidence that Claimant failed to comply with Rule 26 of the applicable Agreement. Claimant telephoned the Carrier, shortly before the start of his shift on the dates in question, and announced he would not report for personal reasons. Claimant never received permission to absent himself from his scheduled shift on these dates. While it was disputed whether the Claimant informed the Carrier on one of the three Sundays that he could not report due to conflict with his pastoral duties, the fact remains that Claimant did not have permission to absent himself from his work assignment for each of the three Sunday shifts.

 The Board finds there is no evidence, as the Organization contends, that the Hearing Officer was incapable of conducting a fair and impartial Investigation due to his participation in a prior Investigation of Claimant on similar charges. Nor does the Board find evidence of record to substantiate Claimant's position that he properly exercised his contractual rights to report off from his assigned shift.
not determine the extent to which Claimant's religious beliefs precluded work ''
 on Sunday as his Sabbath, or whether Claimant merely elected to pursue option
 al religious activities to the detriment of his job commitment with Carrier.
 Even if the Board assumes that Claimant was precluded by his religious beliefs
 from working on Sunday, the Board finds the Claim to be without merit for the
 following reasons.

 First, the Board notes that Claimant received a twenty day suspension for the same offense which was upheld in Second Division Award. No. 10613. Second, the Claimant is not the only employe to experience similar rejection of so-called religious accommodation claims. Second Division Awards No. 10121, 10401. Third, the Board finds that Claimant persisted in absenting himself on November 14, 1982, without permission and without requesting accommodation by the Carrier even though he had been subject to an Investigation on similar charges only 4 days earlier.

 Fourth, the Carrier has argued before this Board that it was not required to circumvent or violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement to accommodate the religious beliefs of Claimant. The parties are in apparent Agreement that Claimant was placed in his present dilemma through the operation of the seniority system in effect at the time of the force reductions and later, his disqualification from Thursday and Sunday employment. The Organization cites no authority to support its contention that Claimant be assigned a split shift to accommodate his pastoral duties. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 65, 79 (1977), rejected the petitioner's argument that the airline work out a shift or job swap to accommodate his refusal to work on his Sabbath.
 Form 1 Award No. 10927
 Page 3 Docket No. 10626
 2-SSR-MA-'86
 "We agree that neither a collective-bargaining contract
 nor a seniority system may be employed to violate the
 statute [Title VII], but we do not believe that the duty
 to accommodate requires TWA to take steps inconsistent
 with the otherwise valid agreement. Collective bargain
 ing, aimed at effecting workable and enforceable agree
 ments between management and labor, lies at the core of
 our national labor policy, and seniority provisions are
 universally included in these contracts. Without a clear
 and express indication from Congress, we cannot agree with
 Hardison and the EEOC that an agreed-upon seniority system
 must give way when necessary to accommodate religious obser
 vances". (Emphasis supplied).

 Claimant admitted at the Investigation that since mid-September, 1982, he was absent from Carrier's service on an average of one day a week. The Board finds that Claimant rendered only four days of service per week, rather than the five required by contract. In rejecting a similar 4-day schedule, the court in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, supra, noted at 432 U.S. 84, that this form of accommodation would itself constitute unequal treatment based on religion:



      Claim denied.

Form 1 Award No. 10927
 Page 4 Docket No. 10626
 2-SSR-MA-'86

                                                        law

                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Second Division

Attest:
 Nancy J. ver·- Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 16th day of July 1986.