4. Awards of the First and Third Divisions, NRAB, fully support the position of the Carrier.

5. The claim is wholly without merit and should be denied.

6. The fact Claimant did not perform service was the result of his own decision not to contact Carrier's representative and report he would be late.

OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to August 11, 1958, Claimant R. 0. Vorhis, Jr. was on an authorized leave of absence for National Guard service from his position as rest day relief Operator-Switchtender with headquarters at Elkhart, Indiana. Upon his return from the National Guard encampment, he sent a message by wire to his superior officer at Chicago, Illinois informing him that he would resume his position at the first trick at Durham, Indiana on Monday, August 11, 1958. He reported for work on that date. The reporting time of this assignment is 7:00 A. M. He states that his arrival time was 7:12 A. M., but Carrier insists he checked in at 7:30 A. M. Extra Operator Aschenbrenner, who filled the position during Claimant's military leave, also reported for the day's work on August 11. Mr. Vorhis was sent home for failure to report on time.

He makes claim that Carrier violated the Agreement of the parties when it prevented him from working his regular assignment and deprived him of a day's pay. Carrier denies the claim on the grounds that Operator Vorhis was not available for work at the regular starting time and failed to contact Carrier for permission to be absent from his regular assignment or to be excused for reporting on time. It supports its position with Rule 702 of the Operating Department under the caption Additional General Rules which states, "Employes must report for duty at the required time . . ." It also maintains that its instructions and its policy in effect for many years provide that any operator more than 15 minutes late for work without notifying Carrier will be sent home.

The tardiness of Mr. Vorhis resulted from a tire blowout on his way to work. He started out with an allowance of enough time to travel the 48 miles from his home to reach Durham, Indiana at the proper reporting hour. He attempted to notify Carrier of his difficulty, but because of a communications problem, he decided it would be better to prevent further delay by continuing to drive the remaining seven miles, a 10 minute trip to Durham.

Although there is conflict between the parties as to the time of Claimant's arrival, even using Carrier's time Claimant was, at the most, one-half hour late. Through an oversight, Carrier failed to notify Extra Operator Aschenbrenner that Mr. Vorhis, the regular occupant, was returning to work oAugust 11th. The immediate availability of Mr. Aschenbrenner made Mr. Vorhis' tardiness far more significant than if Carrier had need to wait for an extra employe to substitute for Claimant. His prompt dismissal appears to us to be related to Carrier's omission in informing the extra employe that his services were no longer needed.

We believe that Claimant was entitled to a hearing under Rule 32 (a). Such a hearing would have afforded him an opportunity to show Carrier the excusable circumstances from which his tardiness stemmed. Moreover, there is considerable dispute between the parties as to the existence of an operating rule and practice whereby Carrier deprives an employe of a day's work if he is more than 15 minutes late without notifying Carrier. Claimant insists he is unaware of such rule or practice. The right of Carrier to expect its employes to report for work on time is, of course, not questioned; however, the circum-

stances in the instant case including Claimant's sincere attempt to report to work on time, his tire blowout, and his efforts to communicate with Carrier to explain his delay along with the presence of an extra employe whom Carrier should have previously notified not to report, lead us to conclude that this tardiness did not justify his dismissal for the day summarily. The claim has merit.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21,1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement of the parties was violated.

AWARD