(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE : (
              (The Belt Railway Company of Czicago-


STATEMENT OF CLAIM : "Claim of the. General Committee of the Brotherhood of
              Railroad Sigoalmen on The Belt Railway Oompany of Chicago:


On behalf of Sigoe "I~ ~ M. Pawlaviczp who was assessed with: a ten (10) days deferred suspension following formal investigation that was held on February 15, 1979."

 OPINION C&' BOVM _: Claimant,, Assistant Signalmen., M. Pawloviczs after investi-
 gationy was assessed a ten (10) day deferred suspension. The am= of the charge against Claimant was that he failed to call in or report that he would be unable, to vork° his .regular assignment 'our January 18, 1979, in accosdance-vith'Rule H and Departmental Bulletin Notice dated December is 1978.

 The Orgn=t-camteada,that Claimant complied with the rule insofar as he called ia:to work raherting,that he would be off duty on all the days he was absent. It also°aigmed--that Claimant's wife called tht.Assistant Signal and Electrical Supervisor to,adviw that Claimant would act -be, able to wqrk January 17P .1979 or Jammorlr 18* 1979 - the day in question. Thereforey the Organization,. cxaterda that Clafmaat'a personnel record should be cleared of the tell (10) dalr·deferted suspension. In pertinent part., Rule H of The Belt Railway Book# effecti-m June, 1s 1974', states:

            "Emplolreea_mnat be- alert and devote themselves. e xd>uA1ve1,Y to the Company's service., attend to tbkds"-duttes-during the hours prescribed, ant~eariftwith the instructions from thepx~er-aufortty in matters pertaining to their:re:poatiroe branches of the service. TbW.muat not absent themselves from duty s. eme1hav4e dvttles with, or substitute others In-thefr-plaoes nor-engage in other business without proper authority.


            They must report for duty as required and those subject to call for duty will be at their usual exllfng place., or leave information as to where they may be located."

                      Award Number 23307 Page 2

                      Docket Number SG-23263


In addition, all employes on the Signal and Electrical Department under the supervision of M. Lukich were notified by Bulletin Notice dated December 1, 1978, that the "Call-in Policy" for the department would be as follows:

            "It has come to my attention that Signal and Electrical Department personnel have a misunderstanding of call-in policy. On any day an employee is to be absent or tardy, the following procedure will be in effect. This is departmental policy and any deviation will result in disciplinary action.


                1. Call Signal and Electrical Supervisor's Office between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:oo A.M. at 496-048.


            2. If no supervisory personnel are present,

                leave message stating name, occupation,

                and starting time.


                3. If appllcablep notify supervisory personnel prior to date of absenteeism or tardiness.


                4.. Periods of more than one day of absenteeism should be specified when calling."


It is undisputed that, Claimant understood the requirement to notify the Carrier when he would not be in to work. It is also clear that Claimant did not report to work or personally call the office to notify Carrier.that he would not be in to work on January 18, 1)79.

 Claimant's only explanation is that his wife, who had called in for him on the previous day, also mentioned that he might be out an additional day. This statement was rejected by the Conducting Officer. An analysis of the transcript, specifically p was not unusual.

 Thus.. Claimant was guilty as charged. Given the proven offense, the penalty assessed is neither arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. 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;

                      Award Number 23307 Page 3

                      Docket Number SG-3263


That the Carrier and the I3nployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved Jane 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: dot

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of May 1987..