(Donnetta J. Patrick
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:_ "This is to serve notice as required by the rules
 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board of my
 intention to file on behalf of my client, Donnetta J. Patrick, an
 Ex Parte Submission within thirty days of this Notice concerning an
 unadjusted dispute between Donnetta J. Patrick and Conrail involving
 the question and authority of a Superintendent to issue a ruling dir
 ected towards one specific employee only prohibiting marking off work
 for any reason whatsoever, where the rule is ridiculously applied to
 an employee under medical treatment and orders not to work. The rule
 as applied contradicts Conrail's own rules relating to the safety,
 health and welfare of its employees."

Assistant Superintendent R. R. Cierley issued instructions to Chief Crew Dispatcher T. B. McDonald and all other Crew Dispatchers that Claimant would not be permitted to mark off for any reason. Claimant's poor work attendance record was the ba Claimant Patrick called the Crew Dispatcher's office and after being informed of the Assistant Superintendent's instructions, marked off duty contrary to such orders.

 By letter dated November 23, 1979 Claimant was notified to attend as investigation on November 28, 1979 in connection with the charge of insubordination for failure to comply with the instructions of
Following the investigation Claimant was notified by letter dated November 30, 1979 that she was dismissed in all capacities. Claimant's discipline was appealed and handled in the Senior Director-Labor Relations. Subsequent to as appeal hearing on March 151, 1980, the Senior Director reaffirmed denial of the appeal by letter gated March 19, 1980.

 Carrier maintains that Claimant deliberately for "no reason" failed to comply with the instructions of Assistant Superintendent Cierley.


Assistant Superintendent Cierley testified that Claimant Patrick's poor attendance record was the basis for his decision that Claimant would not be allowed to be of for any reason and that he issued such instructions to the crew dispatcher's office. Assistant Superintendent Cierley's testimony is corroborated by testimony of Chief Grew Dispatcher To B. McDonald.

 The Carrier asserts that a tape made when Claimant marked off duty on the subject date indicates that Claimant had been advised of Assistant Superintendent Cierley's instructions and that Claimant failed to comply with these instructions for no reason. A transcript of the tape reads as follows:

                " J. IaShell: I didn't go. I couldn't be bothered. What's up? Are you calling to mark off?


        D. Patrick: Yeah.


                J. LaShe11: Let me read to you my notes then you can do whatever you want to. 'Per Assistant Division Superintendent, Donny Patrick is not to mark off for any reason. There.'


                D. Patrick: Oh well, Mark me off until - no reason. The hell with them.


                J. LaShell: O.iC.


                D. Patrick: Whose the Assistant Division Superintendent anyway?


                J. LaShell: Cooly or whatever. I really have it together don't I? Are you sick Donny, or what?


                D. Patrick: Yeah - I am - but I have a personal deal. In other words I am dust flat out fed up with the whole mess down there. It makes me sick. to walk into that office anymore. "


Carrier maintains that Claimant produced no evidence that she had been to the dentist, was on medication and. was therefore unfit to work as she asserts.

 Carrier maintains that Claimant's poor attendance record (off 28 days) and Claimant's short service with the Carrier (5 months), did not warrant extension of any special c
Claimant asserts that on November 20, 1979, following instructions of her gynecologist and dentist, she began to take three prescribed drugs, one of which contains the warning "can cause drowsiness."
                    Award Number 23959 Page 3

                    Docket iiavber KS-24C58


Claimant maintains that had she comalie3 with Assistant Sirorinte.^.dent Cierley's instructions and not marked off on subject date, she risked hurting the Carrier by placing co-employes into improper assignments because of her drowsiness and her difficulty in concentration. Further the Claimant contends that her remarks in the tapes must :.e judged in light of her main and suffering, her goodwill in calling in early, and the normal effect of such medication.

 Upon careful consideration of the record in this matter, the Board concludes that there is substantial evidence on the record to sup^ort the charges. The Board denies 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 Employes 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.


                            P:ATIOi?AL RAILROAD ALITUOB= BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


By R~'ua'
    Rosemarie Drasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of August 1952.