(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Com
 pany that:
rent Signalmen's Agreement effective April 1, 1947 (including revisions) and
 particularly Rule 15 which resulted in violation of Rule 70. _

 (b) Mr. Kennett be reimbursed the amount of $15.44 payment for a call of two hours and forty minutes at his time and one-half rate which was paid to Mr. Kennett in his earnings for first period July 1970, later deducted from his second period August earnings. (Carrier's File: SIG 22-31)

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was regularly assigned as Signal Maintainer with
 hours from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Because of an impending
 strike to commence at 6:00 A.M. on the morning in question, claimant was called
 at 4:40 A.M. and directed to report at 5:45 A.M. Claimant reported at 6:45
 A.M., after the picket line was set up. He did not cross the picket line.

 According to Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 3, claimant's handwritten signed statement, he did not consider that there was an emergency and, "--could see no reason to be then returned home."

 The Organization has referred to Award 18585, in which a claim was sustained when the Carrier called the claimant and twenty minutes later cancelled the call. The Orga not at issue.

 Claimant had submitted an overtime claim for call, "account of strike", which was paid. Carrier later recovered the payment on the ground that payment had been made in error.

 The Carrier has rejected the claim on the ground that claimant did not respond to the call as directed. He took it upon himself to judge the need for the call and voluntarily elected to report at a time of his own choosing. Prior Awards submitted to support this position are: Third Division No. 4112, 18233, 10520, 11102.


We agree with the Carrier's position. Prior Award 18585, submitted by the Organization may be distinguished from this case. It may be assumed that in the prior case, the claimant was ready and willing to report as directed and would have done so if the call had not been cancelled. In the present case the employe, by his own statement, deliberately chose to do as he saw fit. He did not respond to the call as directed. By arriving one hour later, he showed complete indifference to orders. Anyone familiar with picket line situations may assume that claimant intended to arrive after the picket line was established so that he would n If this was not his intention and he believed that the picket line would be removed, he should not b comply with the call.

 A comparable principle was involved in Award No. 4 of Public Law Board No. 358 which involved U T U and this Carrier. In that case, claimants ignored the Carrier's directions. The Findings stated: "These claimants literally dragged their feet unconscionable for any self-respecting carrier or Board to reward such conduct."

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record ono 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 was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: &~IZ
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day ofSeptember 1973.