Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27943
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28348
 89-3-88-3-118
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The dismissal of Mr. C. J. Reese, effective July 1, 1987, for alleged violation of General Rules D, E and 0 and Rule 84, was arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the Agreement.

 (2) Mr. C. J. Reese shall be reinstated with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered, including holiday and overtime pay, that would have accrued to him had he not been dismissed July 1, 1987."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant was, at the time of the incident that gave rise to this case, employed by Carrier as a Trackman. On July 3, 1987, he was advised that he was dismissed from Carrier's service for violation of Carrier General Rules D, E, 0 and Carrier Rule 84. An Investigation into the charges was held on July 16, 1987. As a result of the Hearing, Claimant was found guilty as charged and his dismissal from service upheld. The Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimant that was denied in the early stages of the procedure, but on October 27, 1



Form 1 Award No. 27943
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28348
 89-3-88-3-118
 You must report to this office within 10 days
 of receipt of this letter for the necessary papers
 for the return to work physical or with any infor
 mation that would prohibit your return to work."

 Claimant did not respond to the October 27, 1987, letter and on December 9, 1987, he was informed by letter that because he failed to return to work as directed, his name was being removed from the seniority list in accordance with Rule 5 (A) of the Agreement. Rule 5 (A) reads as follows:

The Organization pursued Claimant's case and ultimately filed it with the Board. This Board will review this case from two perspectives:



This Board has reviewed the record and on the basis of the documents before us and Claimant's past record, it is our opinion that a 30-day suspension would have been amp pay Claimant for the days he would have worked beyond a 30-working day Suspension commencing July 1,
As to Claimant's ignoring Carrier's directive to return to work, here, the Board takes another position. It is the opinion of this Board that Claimant was obligated to return to work, as directed in Carrier's October 27, 1987 letter. That letter does not indicate that Claimant had to agree to accept the time held out of service as a penalty in the case. It told him to report to work in ten days. He failed to do so. When Claimant failed to report within the thirty-day period, Rule 5 (A) became operative and his name was properly removed from the seniority list. This Board has no power to modify that action. The Par and it is appropriately referred as as a self-implementing Rule. Claimant stayed away at his own peril.
 Form 1 Award No. 27943
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28348
 89-3-88-3-118

        Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. Y*~- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of June 1989.