Josef P. S3refman, Referee


    (Brotherhood of Railways Airline and Steamship Clerks (Freight gandlersp Express and Station FSnployes PARTIES 2n DISPUTE: (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company


                  STATWNT OF CLAM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-8975) that:


    1. Carrier acted is an arbitrary capricious and unjust manner and violated the agreement between the parties when on July 30j, 1979 it dismissed clerk-telegrapher Faye M. Blissett from the service of the Carrier.


    2. In view of the foregoing arbitrary capricious and unjust action of the Carrier.. it shall now be required to:


' (a) Restore clerk-telegrapher Blissett to service of the
          Carrier with all seniority,, vacation and other rights un

          impaired.


          (b) Pay clerk-telegrapher Blissett an additional day's pay for attending the hearing on July 26, 1979. Pay Me. Blissett for all time lost commencing with July 301 1979 and continuing until clerk-telegrapher Bliesett is restored to servixj, leas any amount earned in other employment.


          (c) Pay clerk-telegrapher Blissett any amount she incurred for medical or surgical expenses for herself or dependents to the extent that such payments could have been paid by Travelers Insurance Company under Group Policy No. GA23000 and is the event of the death of clerk-telegrapher Bliesettj, pay her estate the amount of life insurance provided for under said policy. In additioap reimburse her for premium payments she may have made in the purchase of suitable healthy welfare and life insurance.


          Pay clerk-telegrapher Blissett any amount of incurred dental expense for herself or dependents to the extent that such payment could have been paid by the Aetna Dental Insurance Company under Group Policy No. GP 12000. In additions reimburse her for payments she may have made in the purchase of suitable dental insurance coverage.

                      Award Number 23388 Page 2

                      Docket Number CL-23272


        (d) Pay clerk-telegrapher Bliasett interest at rate of 10% compounded annually on the anniversary of this claim for amounts due under Item (b) above.


OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, Faye Marie Bliasett, employed by the
 Carrier for about two end a half years, and on the
 Extra List., received a July 20, 1979 Notice of hearing charging her with
 violation of:

        "General Rule B: Employees must be conversant with and obey the rules and instructions. I! in doubt as to their meaning they moat apply to proper authority for an explanation.


        The fact that as employee may not have been examined on certain rules or regulations will not be accepted as an excuse for failure to be conversant with them.


        Rule 702, first paragraph, reading in part: Employees who are negligent ar indifferent to duty ...rill not be retained in the service.


        Rule 717: Employees must not absent themselves from their duties, exchange duties with nor substitute others in their place, without proper authority."


A hearing was held on July 26, 1979 and Claimant was notified by the Superintendent of her dismissal effective July 30, 1979 "for failure to protect your assignment at 1530 in CWfee."

 The Secretary to the River Division Superintendent testifed at the hearing that at 8:45 AM on July 17s 1979 she placed a telephone call to the Claimant, identified herself, advised the party who answered 1530 that day at Chaffee, and checked with that party to make'sure she was talking to Claimant.

 Claimant did not report four that assignment and at the hearing denied ever having received the phone call from the Superintendent's Secretary. As a result of her denial the Organization's position is that the Carrier has not proved that Claimant was is fact so notified. In the opinion of this Board the Secretary's assertion of reaching the Claimant that morning is additionally supported in the record fax days earlier for another assignment, and the uacoatroverbed follow-up call to Claimant's mother made by the Secretary later that day. There was substan- t, tial evidence to sustain the terrier's decision to discipline Claimant.
            _ Axard.Number 23388 Page. 3

            Docket Number CL-23272


Claimant's relatively short period of employment has been marked by a number of times rhea she changed addresses without informing her supervisors, and a pattern of view of this poor record termination was not unreasonable.

        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 Employee involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee 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 was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 15th day of September, 3,981.