(D. L. Woods PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Pursuant to your letter, dated August 9, 1973, we
 hereby supplement our letter and submission dated
 August 6, 1973 and notify you of our intention to and filing of an ex
 parte submission on behalf of Yard Clerk D. L. Woods. Also pursuant
 to that letter, enclosed are ten additional copies of the ex-parte
 submission.

 The submission claims reinstatement to service with pay for all time lost, account Yard Clerk Woods being erroneously dismissed from the service of the Terminal Railroad Association.

 A copy of this letter and one copy of the ex-parte submission on behalf of Yard Clerk D. L. Woods has been furnished to Mr. J. W. Hammers, Manager of Labor Relations for the Terminal Railroad Association.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Our review of the record shows that Grievant, by
 his own admission, failed to protect his assign
 ment on November 1, 1972, as charged. The failure to protect one's
 assignment is a serious matter. As stated in Award No. 14601 by
 Referee George S. Ives,

Railroad operations are highly interdependent with numerous functions requiring strict conformity to schedule if coordination is to be accomplished. Absenteeism, or failure to protect one's assignment-like being AWOL in a military orga effective functioning of the entire organization. The failure to protect one's assignment justifiably exposes the offender to dismissal.

 Grievant argues that extenuating circumstances--defective or mal-functioning alarm clock, previous night-time assignments, and telephone call to Supervisor expressing desire to report for work later that shift--make dismissal an excessive discipline. Grievant's past record shows that in a little over a total of three years of employment, two as messenger and a had previously been dismissed and reinstated on a leniency basis, and he had previously waived investigation and pleaded guilty to a charge


of absenting himself from duty without proper authority when he failed to protect his assignment as a Yard Clerk. On careful consideration of the entire record in t finds that the Carrier's decision to dismiss Grievant was not arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious, unsupported by the record, or excessive.

 In its submission to the Board, the Petitioner has worded its Statement of Claim and has raised several procedural issues which the record shows were not raised in the handling of the dispute on the property. It is so well settled as to require no citation that this Board in adjudicating disputes, may not consider substantive claims, or issues or defenses not raised by the parties in the handling of the dispute on the property.

 Based upon the record of the dispute as handled on the property, the Board finds that none of claimant's substantive procedural rights were violated.



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, and that the discipline imposed was not excessive.




                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of March 1974,