(Brotherhood of Yaintemace of clay 11sployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Trackman V. S. Sinclair was without just and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to the cbarge leveled against him (System File 37-Sa,-79-83/12-39(79-34) J).
(2) Trackman V. S. Sinclair shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant had been in Carrier's service about two and
 one-half years. At the time of the occurrence giving rise to the dispute herein, he was employed as a trackman with headquarters at Carrier's Uceta Yard, under the supervision of Roadmaster Carpenter and Apprentice Foreman Rolle.

 On may 8, 1979, the Uceta Yard area was engulfed in a rain storm during which, it is said, as much as twelve inches of rain fell in the area. As a result, there was much track under water, and the carrier advises a car was derailed. The Carrier contends that a bona fide emergency situation existed; the services of all employes were crucial, and the Roadmaster notified the foremen of employes under his jurisdiction that no one would be allowed to leave their jobs until he was able to determine the condition of the railroad and the weather conditions.

 The pang to which claimant vas assigned was left in charge of the Apprentice Foreman as it was necessary for the regular Foreman of the gang to go on the main line and inspect track. About 2:30 PM the Claimant announced to the Apprentice Foreman that he vas going home because he was wet. He was told that he could not go home because of the emergency situation and his services were needed.

 According to the Carrier, the claimantpersisted in his determination to leave the job and was repeat


When the claimant finally made the statement to the Apprentice Foreman that he was going home (although he did not have permission to do so) the Apprentice Foreman told him tha the Roadmaster Tram not available as he was out checking the condition of the tracks and yards. Claimant then apparently vent home without permission from anyone.

 Claimant was charged with desertion, insubordination and absence without permission. A formal investigation was conducted on May ^2, 1979. A reviev of the transcript, copy of which has been made a part of the record, shows that the investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. None of claimant's substantive procedural rights vas violated. There was substantial evidence adduced at the investigation to support the charges against claimant. Also the claimant's prior work record, which was made a part of the dispute in the handling on the property and is properly before the Board, was far from satisfactory. No had previously been warned on five o violation of Rule 17(b) of the Agreement, which requires that an employe desiring to be absent from service must obtain permission from his foreman or the proper officer.
 Claimant's actions in the present ease, coupled with his prior record, fully warranted his dismissal frog service.

        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
      _ Amid Number 23255 page 3

      Docket Number W-23416

      That the Agreement was not violated.

      A V A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAIMAD AWIBTKMNT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATr&ST:

      RzoeutIve Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this Uth day of April 1981.