(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATFKLPIT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

On behalf of Mr. T. A. Razzano, who was suspended 45 days, January 14, 1930, through February 27, 1980, following investigation held at Jacksonville, Florida, December 17, 1979."

 (Carrier file: 15-47(80-1) H) (Sig. file 3370)

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was assessed a 45-day suspension for failure
 to report for duty and absence from duty without permission, in violation of Operating Rules.

 The Organization challenges the validity of the suspension on two grounds: that the record does not support the charge; and that the disciplinary procedures were not fair and impartial.

 The Claimant was absent from his assignment in Sebring, Florida, on November 30, 1979, without prior notice to the Carrier. He did not notify his superior of the reason for his absence until four hours after his scheduled starting time.

 The Claimant's justification for the delayed notification is that he became i11 the previous evening and was still feeling sick in the early morning. He decided to drive to his home in Jacksonville, an estimated 180 miles from his assigned headquarters. While on the road, he tried once to call his supervisor but was unable to reach him. About noon, within 15 minutes after his arrival home, he called and told his supervisor he was sick and needed permission to be absent f
Having reviewed the record, the Board concludes that the investigation was fair and imraxtial and that the charges are supported by substantial evidence of a probative nature. We also find the discipline to be reasonable in the particular circumstances.

 As this and other Divisions have often stated, w-wecorted absence from work, even for a few hours, disrupts railroad operations, Failure to _i-re notice as soon as possible of inability to report for work as scheduled is properly considered a ser 0cerating rules sake this clear.
                      Docket Number SG-23951


The Claimant has not shown that he was too sick, or that he had no reasonable opportunity, to give notification of his absence at the earliest possible time. According to his testimony, the Claimant was aware of the notification requirements but nevertheless chose to delay complying with them for four hours after the start of his workday. It was then far too late to obtain permission for the four elapsed hours.

 In view of the nature of the offense and the Claimant's past record of absences, the Board canno in the investigative hearing for the sole purpose of providing a relevant basis for assessing discipline if the particular charges were later to be sustained. The Organization's contention of impropriety is thus without merit.

        Accordingly, 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;


That the Carrier and the Employee 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 the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTIENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATT3ST: Acting F,:'cecutive Secretary
      National Railroad Adjustment Board


By , ~ ~, .
    RDSemarie Hrasch - Administrative Assistant


    Dated Iat Chicago, Illinois, this 76th any o_° Aagu7t. X9-^2,