Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11178
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11227
 2-SP-EW-'87
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Paul C. Carter when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Southern Pacific Transportation Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. Under the current Agreement, Mechanical Department Electrician T.
 M. Ash was unjustly treated when she was dismissed from service on February
 14, 1985, following investigation for alleged violation of portions of Rule
 801 and Rule 810 of the General 'Rules and Regulations of the Southern Pacific
 Transportation Company (Western 'Lines). Said alleged violation occurring
 on September 17, 1984.

 2. Accordingly, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines) be ordered to restore Electrician T. M. Ash to service with all rights unimpaired, including service and seniority, vacation, payment of hospital and medical insurance, group disability insurance, railroad retirement contributions, and loss of wages including interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum.

 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.

The Claimant herein is the same as involved in Award No. 11177. The record shows that on September 11, 1984, Claimant completed her apprenticeship as an Electrician.

 On September 18, 1984, about 7:15 A.M., Claimant called a Clerk in Carrier's Tower at Los Angeles Yard, and reported to the Clerk to lay her (Claimant) off for personal business on an indefinite basis. On September 17, 1984, a Representative of the Organization submitted a request for leave of absence for the Claimant for the period September 18, 1984, to October 16, 1984 "account having problem getting school and baby sitter for baby." The request for leave of absence submitted by the Local Chairman on behalf of Claimant was denied by Carrier's Plant Manager on September 18, 1984.
 Form 1 Award No. 11178
 Page 2 Docket No. 11227
 2-SP-EW-'87

 The Claimant had not performed work for the Carrier after September 11, 1984, and had not reported for work on any subsequent days. Inquiry by the Carrier developed that Claimant had enrolled as a full-time student at Chaffey College on September 13, 1984. On October 16, 1984, Claimant was notified by letter from Carrier's Plant Manager, which letter was sent to Claimant's address of record Certified mail:







Further letter dated December 11, 1984, was addressed to the Claimant to the effect that the Hearing was rescheduled for 9:00 A.M., January 15, 1985. On January 14, 1985, Claimant addressed the following letter to Carrier's Plant Manager:
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 11178
 Docket No. 11227
 2-SP-EW-'87

 "I have been informed by my Electrician Representative of the charges brought against me by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. While I am unable to attend the January 15th hearing, I would like to address the charge of alleged dishonesty in my request of a leave of absence.

 The reasons for my request for leave of absence are the same now as they were on September 17, 1984. I was about to complete my apprenticeship which meant that I would be involved in a shift and rest day change because of my seniority date. This would mean new babysitting arrangements which working mothers everywhere know of the difficulty. Additionally, I had planned on attending school and I had no formal schedule at that time.

 I feel that Southern Pacific Transportation Company has taken unusual steps in attempting to resolve this matter. I feel that I have been unduly harassed in the manner that management in Los Angeles has investigated my absence. I feel that I have been discriminated upon by Mr. J. B. Harstad, Plant Manager, and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company by not being granted a leave of absence for my very legitimate reasons while other male employes are granted same as a common occurrence."

 While Claimant stated that she would not be able to attend the January 15, 1985, Hearing, she did not request a postponement of the Hearing, or state when she would be able to attend. The Hearing was conducted on January 15, 1985, as scheduled. Claimant was not present but was represented. We do not consider Claimant's letter of January 14, 1985, as a proper substitute for attendance at the Hearing, where she would be subject to questioning by the Conducting Officer, and possibly Organization Representatives. Following the Investigation, Claimant was notified of her dismissal from service on February 24, 1985.

 In the Investigation it was developed that Claimant had enrolled as a full-time student at Chaffey College on September 13, 1984, prior to requesting a leave of absence; that the reasons stated for the leave of absence were not factual; and that Claimant had been absent from work without authority from September 18, 1984, and had been attending college on a full-time basis. Claimant's dismissal from service was fully warranted; was not arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith. Claimant was in violation of the Rules cited in the letter of charge. The Claim will be denied. As stated in Second Division Award No. 6710:
 Form 1 Award No. 11178
 Page 4 Docket No. 11227
 2-SP-EW-'87
 "Every employe has an obligation and a duty to -
 report on time and work his scheduled hours,
 unless he has good and sufficient reason to be
 late, to be absent, or to leave early. These
 reasons must be supported by competent and
 acceptable evidence. No employe may report when
 he likes or choose when to work. No railroad can
 be efficiently operated for long if voluntary
 absences are condoned."
 A W A R D




Attest:

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of February 1987.