Robert E. Petersoap Referee


Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
                    St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company (Now Burlington Northern Inc.)


STATE CF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The dismissal of Trackman L. D. McCafferty far alleged violation of Rule 189 was without dust and sufficient cause and wholly disproportionate to such s charge (System File B-1003).

 (2) Trackman L. D. McCafferty shall be reinstated with seniority and all arbor rights unimpaired., his record be cleared and he shall be caer
 peassted far all wage loss suffered."

                m CF331ION CF BOARD: This is a discipline case involving violation of Rule 189 of Carrier's Roles for its Maintenance as Way and Structures Employee. This rule reeds:


          "Employee must not absent themselves from their duties exchange duties with nor substitute others is their place without proper authority."


    The record ohms that Claimant had been disqualified as a Track Forma effective the close of work on August 3j, 1979. Thereafter is the voluntary esarcise of seniority he displaced onto a fob as a Trnclcoas at Sayders Oklshamap reporting far work an Snyder Gang 552 an August 29, 1979. This gang is composed of a Foreman and three 'iraekmeap one of which was Cis'msat. On August 30 sad 31* 1979 teat absented himself free duty without proper authority. Whoa he returned to work he was counse The Claimant reportedly told the Foreman that he was absent because he was building a new home and that he was going to lay off when he wanted to and it did not make any difference what the Foreman said ands according to the Foreman. said, "if they fire me they xi71 dust tire we" The Foreman furtherr8tatea that he told Claimant that ii he continued to lay oft without proper authority he would have to suffer the consequences for such action. He also states he told Claimant that although he would not grant him peimisaion to be absent from work to work on his hasep that Claimant was free to take the matter to his superiors it he so chose.


    The Claimant was again absent without proper authority on September 25o 26., 27 and 28., 1979 and following these absences he was removed Prom service.

                    &ALrd gmber 24159 Page 2

                    Docket Number Db1-23886


At a formal herring accorded C7simBat relative to these latter absences, Claimant did rat dispute the fact he had been counselled abort his absences# stating that he had to take off whether he had permission or not; he was forced into a financial bind, sad "couldn't get Division Engineer Plsachoa to see my problems as the roadmaster either one."

 In additional, testimony Claimant stated that he "had concrete to rung it was threatening rain;" that he needed to poor concrete for the foundation of his raw home at that time because rain world have prevented a cement track cram getting out to his home for another six weeks. Further,, that he end his wife "were worried about loosing (sic) the equity that we got out of our other hose without getting another home...we were afraid we world loose (sic) oar money before we got the home built."

 Be are not persuaded that Claimant had good end sufficient cause to be absent from works particularly in the light of the counselling he had received relative to his stated intentions. tktder the circumstances,, sad in view of Claimant's past disciplinary record indicating that daring his eight and sae-half years' service he had. twice been dismissed nod reinstated on a leniency basis (once far falsely claiming travel expenses sad once far insubordination in refusing to work overte as well as 25 demerits for failure to report the personal injury of a track man working in his gang, we find no basis to disturb the diacipline.imposed. The Carrier should not be burdened with the need to keep in its employ as employe who.. as Carrier's Aseista4t Chief Engineer stated is his denial of Claimant's appeal for reinstatement, "seems to feel that his only responsibility-is to himself and that he oar do as he pleases.. regardless of iastructionso ooanse7.7.in8 and disciplinary action."

 FI'101T1G3: The Third Division a2 the Adjustment Boards upon the whole record
        and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

                                            _.

That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jnrisdicttoW ;: ..,~ over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated. ..


                      A li A R D


Claim denied.
 NATIOAAL RAILROAD AATU5TME9T BOARD
 By Order of Third Division
 ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary ^_
        National Railroad Adjustment Hoard


By
        Rosemarie Bras Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago,, Illinois, this 15th day or February 1983.