(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

(a) Carrier has not shown through substantial evidence that E. G. Sullivan, M. M. Thomas, R. B. Thomas, J. L. Heryy, D. L. Ennis, R. A. Thompson, D. M. Hutchinson.. and J. N. Childers, are guilty of violating Rule 709.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to rescind infraction of suspension of the above employees. In the event Carrier does not rescind its suspension action, then this letter shall serve as notice of Claim in behalf of above employees for reimbursement of all benefits and loss of time which would normally been received by the employees had they been allowed to perform service du
(c) Carrier should also remove from the personal files any record of this investigation or charges. Carrier shall remit to the General Chairman a letter to this effect."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On April 20, 1978, immediately prior to their regular
 start time, eight (8) members of a "floating signal
 construction gang" confronted their foreman with the news that they were
 unable to go to work due to illness. While the foreman vas seeking advice
 from his superior, the Claimants prepared and gave him notes which (essentially)
 stated they were sick and unable to report for duty. The gang, which had been
 housed in a motel at Tallahassee. Florida, some distance from their homes
 which were at various locations in the State, left that location and, instead
 of going directly to their homes or to see physicians, first went as a group
 to Jacksonville, Florida and called upon the Chief Engineer for Signals and
 Communications. At that time, they aired various complaints relative to
 their foreman. (According to the Carrier, on April 20, 1978 Just prior to
 comencing the shift the foreman had upbraided the Claimants for the manner


in which they had cluttered up their motel room -- asaertedly a violation of a lodging Agreement with the motel -- and the Claimants were incensed over his orders to clean up the mesa.) Most or all of the Claimants secured doctor's notes on April 21, 1978 attesting to their asserted illnesses.

 On the basis of a hearing, the Claimants were each assessed two (2) weeks suspension from service on a charge of violation of Rule 709 - absenting oneself from duty. Me Organization asserts that such action was in error due to lack of proper notice of the hearing, a pre-,judgment of guilt by the Carrier, and a lack of shoving of meeting the burden of proof.

        On review of the considerable record in this case, this Board

finds no basis to affirm the Organization's assertion of improper notice:
 while the actual notice may not have been "in-hand" within the obligatory
 h8-hours, all of the Claimants were shown the document and as evidenced
 by their presence, all were sufficiently apprised of this event. As to
 the other two defenses raised b7 the Organization, notwithstanding its
 contention to the contrary, the Claimants' actions immediately post their
 asserted incapecities is not only relevant but decisive. When taken in
 the context of the events earlier that day, i.e. the foreman's admonish
 ment concerning their housekeeping practices, the journey of the group
 to see the Chief Engineer, en masse raises an overwhelming doubt as to
 the validity of their claims of being too sick to work. If the Claimants
 had legitimate complaints as to their treatment at the hands of the fore
 man, they had available to them the machinery to properly air such
 dissatisfaction -- the grievance procedure. Their collective decision
 to take matters into their own hands fatally undermined any reasonable
 possibility that they might have all suffered an inability to work on
 April 20, 1978. Under the circumstances, this Board shall, not attempt
 to substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier. We find no violation
 of the Agreement.

        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;

                    Award Number 2312T Page 3

                    Docket Number sG-22986


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 vas not violated.


                      A ti A R H


        Claim denied.


                              RATIONAL RAILROAD ADTOSUAT BOM

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:'
      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January 1981.