(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc.

(1) The suspension of ten (10) days imposed upon Machine Operator G. L. Bower for allegedly 'being absent from duty without proper authority on September 13, 1976 through and including September 17, 1976' was without just and sufficient cause, unwarranted and in violation of the Agree 10-20 3/29/77/.

 (2) The claimant's record be cleared of the charge placed against him and reimbursement be made for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant appeals a ten (10) day suspension for
 allegedly being absent from duty without proper
 authorization from September 13, 1976 through September 17, 1976.
 He contends that such action was unjust;larbitrary and inconsistent
 with Agreement Rule 40(C).

 The record in this instance shows that while Claimant because of illness was allowed to take a one week's vacation from August 9, 1976 through August 13, 1976, he did not secure further permission to extend this absence.

 After a considerable lapse of time, Carrier then sent him a certified letter, dated September 8, 1976, advising him to report to work on Monday, September 13, 1976. The notice read in part,





In response Claimant argues that it was impossible for him to report to work on that day, since he had only received the letter on September 13, 1976. He contends that he tried to call his supervisors to apprise them of his circumstances, but was unable to make telephone contact with them until late in the afternoon on September 16, 1976. Because of these conditions he asks that his record be cleared of the charge preferred against him and that he be reimbursed for all wage loss suffered.

 Cur review of the record which focuses only on the time period contained in the allegation, indicates that while it was difficult, if not impossible for Claimant to report to work on September 13, 1976, since he had just received the September 8, 1976 notice that day, he was under a more compelling obligation to notify promptly his supervisors of his predicament.

 Asserting that he was unable to contact them until September 16, 1976 was not enough. He could h and directed effort to reach them. His job was at stake and it is not unreasonable to expect more resourceful efforts to protect it.

 Accordingly, having thus found that Claimant was absent from work without proper authorization, we will not disturb the penalty imposed.

 We have not found any evidence that Carrier acted unreason=' ably, arbitrarily or capriciously when it suspended Claimant for ten (10) days.

        We will deny the claim.


        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
                    Award Number 22390 Page 3

                  Docket Number NW-22449


        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BQAFJ)

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1979.