NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 John B. LaRocco, Referee

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES 7n DISPUTE:

 (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

 Award Number 23295
 Docket Number SG-23449

Signalman A. Rouse and Assistant Signalman E. Manago be reimbursed for the loss of all wages and other benefits resulting from their two week suspension from service and any reference to the discipline or events related thereto be removed from their personal records."

 CCarrier file: 15-47 (79-5)

 OPINION OF BOARD: The two claimants in this dispute were each suspended
 for two weeks for eh.:ged violations of Carrier Rule 708
 after an investigation which was held pursuant to proper notice on March 22,
 1979. The relevant portion of Carrier Rule 708 states;

 "Employees must not absent themselves from duty ....or part of a tour of duty, without first obtaining permission from the proper officer ... "

 On Thursday, March 15, 1979, both claimants, signalmen,, were members of Signal Gang No. 6 which was working at 3e1Lvood, Virginia. Claimants worked a four day week, Monday through Thursday, and a ten hour day. Each day the (terrier's van left the gang°s lodging facilities at 6:45 a.m. On March 15, 19?9, the van departed the motel at 6:50 a.m. The claimants shared a room at the motel. On this morning, Claimant Rouse was temporarily incapacitated due to s minor ailment. Claimant Manago decided to stay with him. At approximately 6:45 a.m., another signalmen warned the claimants that the van was waiting for them. The claimants aid not report to the van. The Foreman made no attempt to check on why the claimants failed to report to the van. After waiting for awhile, the claimants took a taxicab to the local train station to journey home. They timely reported to work the following Monday morning.

 The Carrier urges us to sustain the discipline because the evidence conclusively demonstrates that the claimants violated Rule 708. According to the Carrier., the claimants have the obligation to report to either the 'ran at 6:45 a.m. or the job site at 7:C0 a.m. and the Carrier has no affirmative duty to ascertain why the claimF.nts were detained. The Organization argues that the entire dispute could have been avoided if the track gang Foreman had either gone to claimants' room to check on their problems or returned to the hotel after the claimants failed to retort directly to the job site.


Employes have an obligation to timely report to their assignment each working day. Here, the claimants should have reported to the Carrier van by 6:45 some, the job site by 7:00 &*me or they should have obtained permission to be late before the van left the hotel. While the Foreman could easily have gone to the claimants' room to find out why the claimants were delayed (and this i Carrier does not hale a contractual duty to round up employes to go to work. The claimants aggravated their offense by making no effort to obtain transportation to the job site after missing the van. Instead, they went home leaving the Carrier short two men for ten hours of work. Claimant Manago, who was not incapacitated, had ample opportunity to walk to the van and inform the lead Signalmen that there vas a problem. Therefore, the claimants failed to fulfill their duty to report to work on March 15, 1979. Under the circumstances, a two week suspension for each claimant was a penalty commensurate with the proven offense.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and. Ebiployes 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








ATTEST:

      Execs Secretary w7---_- _ ,


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of May 19$1. / '//'

                                        r,