(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Consolidated Rail Corporation

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it disciplined (placed a written reprimand on their records) Messrs. L. G. Cain, S. D. Shanor, S. M. Sienicki, D. R. Auens and E. J. Fisher without agreement in writing between them, their union representative and the Carrier's authorized official and/or without benefit of a hearing as stipulated in Section 2(a) of Agreement Rule 27 (System Dockets CR-769D, 770D, 771D, 772D and 773D).

 (2) The discipline (written reprimand) imposed upon Messrs. Cain, Shanor, Sienicki, Auens and Fisher for alleged failure to report for duty on Friday, February 10, 1984 and alleged failure to request permission for such absence was unreasonable and unwarranted.

 (3) As a consequence of either or both (1) and/or (2), above, the written reprimand mentioned in Part (1) hereof shall be removed from the claimants' records."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On February 10, 1984, when Claimants reported to work they
 were confronted by a picket line where furloughed Carmen
 were demonstrating. Because of the picket line a substantial number of employ
 ees did not report to work on time and a number of other employees, including
 Claimants herein, did not report at all that day. Claimants did not contact
 Carrier and request or receive permission to be off that day. On March 1,
 1984, Claimants received a written reprimand for failure to report for work on
 February 10th.

 The Organization takes the position that Carrier has violated Rule 27 Sections 1 and 2 by its actions in issuing the letters of reprimand without a Hearing. Carrier insists that its actions were appropriate and were supported by the language of Rule 27 1 (a).

 This issue has been before the Board on two previous occasions, addressed by Third Division Awards 26382 and 26383, under virtually identical pertinent circumstances. This Board held in Award 26382:



          question, abridge or deny the right of the Carrier to discipline employees who violate important Rules. However, employees, under Rule 27, have the right


Based on the principle of stare decisis this Claim also must be sustained.

        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 violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. ev - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 23rd day of November 1987.