Burl E. Hays, Referee


          (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Fmployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Central Railroad Company_ of New Jersey (R. D. Timpany, Trustee)


                        STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (CL7191) that:.


          (A) Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement, particular reference to the Rule No. 3 (a) and Exhibit No. 6, on May 18, 197L, Mien they failed to call Mr. E. 'fhau to cover a temporary ·:acancl, on the 11:00 P. M. - 7:00 A.M. Crew Dispatcher assignment, and


          (b) Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. 1'. Thau a day's pay at the punitive rate, for May 18, 1971.


          OPINION OF BOARD: On May 17, 1971, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

          instituted a national strike against most of the nation's

          rail carriers. The Carrier in this case, Central Railroad Company of New

          Jersey, was struck by the Brotherhood.


                Late in the day on May 18, 1971 the Signalmen's strike was officially

          terminated and Carrier began instituting normal operations. At about 11:30 P.M.,

          Carrier began notifying those employees who were normally scheduled to work at

          11:00 p.m., and who had not reported for work because they were observing

          Signalmen's picket lines, to return to service to complete their regular

          assignments. .'.'


          Mr. C. Hoffman was regularly assigned to work the 11:00 p.m. Crew Dispatcher's position on May 18. At 11:30 p.m. a call was placed to his home and his wife answered. She advised that he was not at home but that he would return the call when he returned home. Approximately four hours later a second call was placed to Mr. Hoffman's home and his wife reported that he was still not at home.


          Claimant E. Thau, who was regularly assigned to work the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Crew Dispatcher's assignment is seeking eight hours' payment at the rate of time and one-half on the grounds that he should have been called when the Carrier was unable to contact the regular incumbent, Mr. Hoffman.


          Many Awards of this Division have established that the Carrier must demonstrate reasonable diligence in the matter of calling employees to work.

          (See Awards 14310, 16334, 17062, 17116, 17533 and 19383.).In this case we


_l,s W -''gt"
                    Award ~'.-imbcr L9R(19 Page 2

                    Docket `;umber (:L-20022


hold that Carrier did exercise reasonable dili,>j~·rce in attempting to call the regular occupant, Mr. C. Hoffman, for work on his own position.

 Claimant Thau was on his second F=eheduled rest day, May 17th, and voluntarily absented himself from duty on May 18th, the first day of his normal workweek, by failing to appear for duty or report off. There is no dispute as to Mr. Thau's fitness, ability or seniority for this assignment, but the controlling factor is availability, and there is no showing in this record that Claimant rhau was avttil:,ble to work Hoffman's position at i1:00 p.m. the time Hoffman's position was schedule-·0 Lo start. Merefore, the claim must he denied.

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


        Th.:t the particc waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employns invnlv,:d in this dispute are respectively carrier and Employes within the moaning oC Hit! ;;aiLway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 rhat this Division of the Adjustment Board h:is jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the claim must be denied.


                      A Iv A R D


        Claim denied.

        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

        ' - By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of July 1973.