(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATIME.9T OF CLAIN: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Trackman J. L. Lenton for 'failure to protect' his 'assignment about 3:30 p.m.., December.l9, 1979' vas without dust and sufficient cause and wholly disproportiona
(2) Trackman J. L. Lenton shall be reinstated with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered including holiday pay."

 OPINION OF HOARD: The Claimant, J. L. Lentos was hired by the Carrier on
 September 18, 1978 in its Maintenance of Way Department . as a Track Laborer. 'Oa January 10., 1980 a formal. investigation was held into. the matter that the 'Claimant on December 19, 1979 failed to protect his work
 ,assignment. Claimant was found guilty of leaving his assignment without per
 mission sad was dismissed from service. In conference on -September 12, 1980,
 Carrier's Director of Labor Relations offered reinstatement on a leniency basis,
 without pay, to Trackman Lenton and Trachea IaVeigae, also involved is same
 incident. Claimant Lenton refused the offer.

 The Carrier maintains that on December 19, 1979 Trackman Lenton left his assignment without permission even though he knew that as emergency existed due to a broken rail. Claimant knew and had observed the proper "mark off" procedures, but in the in merely walked off from his fob without permission or notifying Foreman Hunt. Testimony by Foreman Hunt states that of the men on his gang heard him say that they were going to work overtime and that Trachea Lenton did not ask permission to be off. Foreman Hunt further testified that Trackmaa Lenton had always performed overtime in the past when he was requested unless Claimant had permission to get off.

 The Claimant maintains that he was not required nor asked by Foremen Hunt to perform overtime services. Testimony by Lenton states that he informed Foreman Hunt that he vas not able to work overtime because he did not have a ride home. Since Foreman Hunt made it clear that he did not care if Claimant worked as not sad had instructed Claimant to talk to Supervisor Blakley, Claimant felt that he was g Claimant testified that had he been instructed to remain at the work site and informed as to the urgency of the work.. he would not have left. Further Claimant testified that he Foreman Hunt fully understood that Claimant was leaving the property.


Upon careful consideration of th~.,record herein the Board concludes that dismissal in this case is excessive. (There is substantial evidence is the record which supports the conclusion that Claimant dial not have a full understanding that he was being ordered to work overtime. The Board further, notes the Claimant's heretofore unblemished work record and the fact that Claimant testified that if he had understood that he was being ordered to work overtimes he would have complied with this order. Accordingly we hold that Claimant shall be reinstated without backpay and with seniority and all other rights unimpaired.



That the Carrier sad the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acts as approved June 21, 1934;

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



        Clsim.sustaiaed in accordance with the opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 ;.

 By

      Rosemarie Breach - Administrative Assistant ,,\~\ ~.,,

                                                  _ _ .


                                              c` ~


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of August 1982. \ --____--