(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western Trans
 portation Company:

 (a) On or about January 22, 1973, the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 16(a), 67 and revised Rule 60, when it disciplined Mr. John D. Foote thirty (30) days deferred suspension, when he did not repair the malfunction of the Lake Bluff interlocking plant, account of being registered unavailable for calls as Rule 16(a) allows.

 (b) The Carrier now be required to clear Mr. John D. Foote's record of this discipline. /Carrier File: D-9-8-149/

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was charged with failure to comply with instruc
 tions to perform certain repairs. Subsequent to investi
 gation, a thirty (30) day deferred suspension was assessed.

 On January 12, 1973, Claimant registered absent or "checked out" pursuant to Rule 16(a):


At the instruction of the Dispatcher, at about 6:27 p.m. on the day in question the Telegraph Operator attempted to contact Claimant (at home) by telephone, however the line was busy. At 6:31, Claimant answered his phone, and the Telegraph Operator told him that there was certain trouble requiring his attention. According to the operator, Claimant responded that he had "checked out."


The operator attempted to contact other employees, both before and after the time he spoke with Claimant, to no avail (except for one employee who lacked the necessary experience). This information was relayed to the Dispatcher, who advised the operator to keep trying, and to contact the employees who had "checked out." The only employee he was able t reach was Claimant (at 7:24 p.m.). When Claimant was told of the Dispatchet's instructions, he responded (according to the operator), "Sorry, buddy, I am leaving town."

 At the investigation, Claimant denied that he mentioned that he was leaving town, but rather, testified that when the operator told him that the Dispatcher said, "You gotta go" - he answered: "That I didn't gotta go."

 Although not mentioned on January 12, 1973, Claimant stated at the investigation that his refusal was predicated upon the fact that he was an official of the Union and was "checked out" to go to a Union meeting. There was also reference to the fact that Claimant's father was seriously ill in the hospital at the time.

 The Organization takes the position that, "registering off call should also relieve the employe of his responsibility to respond ...."

 We question that the wording of Rule 16(a) grants an employee an unfettered right to be absent from contention was, in general terms, advanced and rejected in Award 10846. Moreover, Claimant conceded, as a Signal Maintainer is to answer emergency calls. In addition - although there was some question as to the clarity of the document - Claimant read and signed Circular Letter No. 256 five (5) months before the incident which stated, in part, "Simply registering 'unavailable' or 'checking out' is insufficient information and not in agreement."

 Although considerable mention has been made of the state of Claimant's father's health, he never stated that said factor entered into his refusal to respond to the instruction. In its Rebuttal Statement, the Organization states that Claimant "...might have wished to visit his father in the hospital, and attend the Union meeting, during the same evening." The cited assertion is purely speculative and is not based upon any evidence of record.

 Had Claimant (as an elected official) stated his refusal to report in terms of necessity of attendance at a Union meeting, we would be required to consider an asserted in refusal. But, the record before us is not in such a posture, and we state no opinion as to an ultimate conclusion under those circumstances. Suffice it to say


that we are limited to the particular record before us, and claimant made no such assertion on January 12, 1973. Rather, he conceded at the investigation:







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






                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September 1975.

        DISSENT TO AWARD N0. 20831 - DOCKET N0. SG-20806


The Majority in Award No. 20831 has erred in denying the employees' claim.

 Its first error was to look to Award No. 10846 which was based on an agreement rule contrastible to that here present. It also erred in relying on the failure of the Claimant to advise his caller of the precise reasons for his unavailability; the record shows that the Carrier was apprised of his reasons not later than at the investigation, before discipline had been imposed, and in ample time to have given it due consideration. Finally, we cannot imagine a carrier management so inattentive to its affairs that it would not know who are the officers of its employees' organizations and not knowing the schedule of such organizations' meetings.

        Award No. 20831 is in error and I dissent.


                              aa(

                        W. W. Altus, Jr.


                                          4

                                          ET