(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The suspension of five (5) days imposed upon Trackman Willie Tolbert for alleged violation of 'Rule 17-b of the Agreement between the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, and Rule 18 of the Safety Rules and General Rule 2 of the Safety Rules for Engineering and Maintenance of Way Employees' was improper arbitrary capricious unwarranted and on the basis of unproven charges (System File 37-SCL-80-109/x-39(x-28) G1).

 (2) The claimant's record be cleared and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 OPINION OF BOARD: At approximately 1:45 AM on February 19, 1980, claimant
 received a telephone call at his home from his Section
 Foreman instructing him to report immediately for duty at a derailment site.
 The main line of the railroad was blocked and it was urgent to repair the
 damage as soon as possible. Claimant advised his foreman be would report
 as directed. He failed to do so sad did not report for work until the
 start of his regular shift at 7:30 AM.
to the claimant's home which was answered by claimant's wife. There is some
 conflict as to her reply. The foreman testified that she advised claimant
 had already gone to work. The claimant says she advised he was out in the
 yard working with his car. Claimant's defense is that he could not get his
 car started; that he tried to call the foreman but got no reply. He testi
 fied he also tried to call another member of the section crew who was in a
 car pool but was unable to get an answer. He admits not trying to call any
 other officer of the Carriers saying he was so disgusted with his car and
 did not think about it.

 Because of failure to report for work as directed he was charged with the following rules violations:

 Rule 17-b of the Agreement between the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees which reads:



Rule 18 of the Safety Rules for Engineering Pnd Maintenance of Way Employees which reads:



General Rule 2 of the Safety Rules for Engineering and Maintenance of Way Employees which reads:

        "Obedience to the rules is essential to Safety."


Following investigation as required by the rules claimant was assessed discipline of suspension from
Rule 1T-b is clear in providing that when an employs is unavoidably kept from work he must be able to furnish proof of inability to notify his foreman or proper officer. In ..his case it is understandable that claimant may not have been able to reach his foreman. by phone who had probably already gone to deal with the emergency. Claimant did not, however, eke any further effort to get word of his inability to report to work as directed. He did not try to contact anyone at Rockport although he knew the telephone number at that office and had called it before. His answer when questioned on this point, was that he was disgusted with his car and did not think about it. This is hardly a responsible or satisfactory answer for a regular employs whose services were seeded in as emergency situation. He said his car problem ass due to a defective with getting his car started; it had given the same kind of trouble prior to this occasion. Finally, later in the week, claimant purchased a new battery to correct the problem. Recognizing the necessity of reliable transportation to get to work on a dependable basis sakes it a principal requirement that such a critical item as a functioning battery be given priority attention; not alloyed to go unattended as was done in this case.

 The clear fact is that claimant violated Rule 17-b by failing to furnish proof of his inability to notify his foreman that he was unavoidably kept from work and oversight in failing to notify the Rockport office. Had he done so other help could have been secured to assist with the emergency work. 9s it was, the crew was short handed and this caused violations of the safety rules referred to. Rule 18 refers to insubordination which is applicable to the extent that the employs failed to report as dir any acceptable explanation of such failure.

 In view of on-- review of the circumstances as discussed herein, it is the opinion of the Board that the discipline was not unreasonable and we
 therefore, deny the claim, -
                    Award Number 24074 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-24316


        FLKDI1tGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boards upon the whole record and all the evidences finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the z'.mployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Emp7.oyes 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

 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 ALITUSBMT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


By .t..~··r.
 ~osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago Illinois this 14th day of December 2'92.