(Brotherhood of Railway. Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when, folowing as investigation on October 3 from service for a period of thirty (30) days, commencing on November 7, 1978, and continuing uo to and including December 6, 1978;

 2. Carrier shall now compensate Mr. Bone for all time lost as a result of this susvension from service and shall clear his record of the charge placed against him.

 OEINION OF BOARD: Claimant Bone is a yard clerk in Carrier's employ. On
 October 2, 1978, claimant did not report for work.
 Carrier notified him that as investigation into the incident of his absence
 would be held on October 31, 1978. At the conclusion of that hearing, claim
 ant was found guilty of failing to protect his assignment on October 2. He
 was assessed a 30-day suspension. A review of the record of that investi
 gation reveals that claimant received a full sad fair hearing and that he
 was granted all substantive and procedural rights guaranteed by agreement.

 Claimant called his supervisor on Sunday evening, October 1, 1978, to tell him that he wanted to mark off until further notice, account he was upset. The supervisor denied claimant permission to be off for such a reason. During the conversation,, claimant changed his reason for wanting to be off from being upset to being sick. The supervisor still did not grant claimant permission. He did, however, indicate ,.hat if claimant wanted to be off, he would have to get permission from someone is a higher position than the supervisor. He, the supervisor, would not grant such permission.

 Claimant called Carrier's Vice President and requested that he be granted permission to be off on Monday, October 2, account he was upset. After what appears fry the record to be a rather lengthy conversation, the Vice President told claimant he would not undermine his supervisor's authority and grant claimant pe night's sleep. If he still did not feel well in the morning, he should call is end report off sick. Claimant did not call in and report off.
 Award Number 23304
 Docket Number Q.-23239

 Page 2

 We have carefully reviewed the record and must conclude that Carrier did not violate the agreement by assessing a 30-day suspension is the instant case. Claimant, by his own testimony, stated that he did not call in on the morning of October 2 to report off. Carrier's Vice President gave claimant a perfect "out" by suggesting that if he did not feel well is the morning, he could call in and report off sick. Claimant neglected to do so at his own peril.

 This Board need not cite previous decisions on this point to support its position. It is well understood in the railroad industry that failure to report off and failure to protect one's assignment are grounds for discipline. Claimant is a local union official xho, among all employee, should know and follow the rules. He failed to do so in this case and Carrier had the right to discipline him. The record also reveals that claimant has run afoul of time and attendance standards in the past .

 Carrier took into account claimant's past record is deciding on the level of discipline to be administered. This Board sees no basis on which it can find Carrier in violation of the agreement or the accepted principals of progressive discipline.

 FINDMGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board,, upon the whole
 recm-l. and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employer. 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 Carrier did not violate the agreement.

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 ATTEST: a /,00v
 EScectitive Secretary

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTSiEiiT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 29th day of May 19$1.