w '
 NATIONAL RAILROAD AWUSWiT BOARD
 ~vard Number 24384
 THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW 24483



                    (St. Louis-S= Francisco Rai3xay Company)


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


      (1) The two (2) weeks of suspension imposed upon Trackmaa W. Mosley for 'failure to protect overtime work on Saturdayp October 11,, 1980' was excessive and wholly disproportionate to the charge leveled against him (System File B-2000).


            (2) Trackmaa W. Mosley shall be compensated four all wage loss suffered."


      OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant prior to his suspension was employed as a trackman

      by the Carrier laying rail in Arkansas. He was assigned to

      a gang and was scheduled to work Monday through Fridays with Saturday and Sunday

      designated as rest days. He was instructed on Friday,, October 10,, 1980 to report

      for overtime work on Saturdays October 11, 1980, a designated rest day., to repair

      track.damaged by a derailment. He did not report far duty on Saturday; he did

      not request permission to be absent on Saturday and he failed to protect the over

      time work assignment. When he reported foe' work the following Monday he was given

      a tyro (2) week suspension. This action was requested for review alleging a two

      week suspension was unjust discipline. -A formal investigation of the matter was

      held on November 6, 1980 and by letter dated November 12j. 1980 the Carrier advised

      Claimant that as a result thereof the trio-week suspension was maintained as a

      violation of Rule 189 had been found by the Carrier.


      There are two aspects to this matter,, (1) did the Carrier present sufficient probative evidence and, if soy (2) was the discipline considtent with the charge levied or excessive and wholly disproportionate to the charge.


      It is our finding that the evidence of the violation was clearly established by the evidence at understood the instruction and did not request permission to be absent. Ifs as was allegedf the Claimant has prior personal business it was incumbent upon him to advise his foreman and seek to be excused to be absent. He didn't. As stated in Second Division Award 8238:

                      Award Number 2438~'4~'° Page 2

                      Docket Number IMW-24483


        "The employment relationship demands, of necessity, and particularly in this critical industry that employees must diligently perform the work for which they are hired. If any employee chooses to determine unilaterally, his employment schedule, he does so at his peril."


There are numerous decisions of this and other divisions of this Board where the Board has refused to substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier unless it is capricious, arbitrary or excessive. There is no evidence of that nature in this case. The Carrier judgment will therefor be and is sustained.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment 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.


                            NATICKAL RAIIRGAD ADJUSTMNT BARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        Attest: Acting Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


BY 4d=JfC&=::2= W46 C~44~
 Rosemarie Branch - Administrative Assistant

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of May 1983.


                                              VIECEi vEO ,,


                                              JUL 2 7 1983

                                            c~; gse ,

                                            co office-gll'