Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29078
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29573
 91-3-90-3-532
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way gmployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The dismissal of Maintenance of Way Employe J.'Crabtree for his alleged failure to protect his assignment and alleged excessive absenteeism was arbitrary, capricious, excessive and in violation of the Agreement.

 (2) Claimant J. Crabtree shall be '... reinstated and compensated for all lost wages including benefits and credits. His personal record should be expunged of any wrongdoing.''

 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.

At the time the instant case arose in November 1989, Claimant was employed in Carrier's Maintenance of Way Department in Chicago, Illinois. It is uncontroverted on the record that Claimant had been absent from work on October 25, 30, and November 1, 1989. On November 2, 1989 Carrier sent the Claimant a letter warning him that continued absences would result in disciplinary action. Moreover, Claimant regarding the correct mark-off procedure to be used, since he had failed to use the correct mark-off procedure on November 1, 1989.

 Subsequently, the Claimant failed to report for work as scheduled on November 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14, 1989. On November 14, 1989, Carrier notified Claimant to appear at a Hearing on November 22, 1989, "to determine [his] responsibility with regard to [his] excessive absenteeism and failure to
 properly mark-off your assignment on November 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th and
 Form 1 Award No. 29078
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29573
 91-3-90-3-532

 14th." Claimant did not appear for the Hearing, and, when telephoned by his supervisor, he advised that he did not wish a postponement and the Carrier should proceed without him. Following the Investigation Claimant was notified of an assessment of fifteen days' suspension in a letter dated December 4, 1989. By letter of December 5, 1989, Claimant was notified of an Investigation into his absences wit December 1, 4, and 5, 1989. Following an Investigation-on December 20, 1989, Claimant was dismissed from Carrier's service.

 The Organization, in its brief, suggests that Claimant had "good reason" for not appearing at wo work being assigned him was outside of his craft. The rare exceptions to the "Obey now, grieve later" maxim in insubordination cases, such as genuine health or safety concerns, is well recognized by this Board. Third Division Awards 21538 and 27290. However, an employee attempting to invoke such exceptions bears a heavy evid that Claimant unilaterally determined he would withhold himself from service until he was satisfied that he would do track work and not repair work. In short, the Claimant resorted to self-help to enforce his interpretation of the Agreement between the Parties.

 Under the circumstances, the dismissal should be upheld. The Claimant was a relatively short-tim disregard for the Carrier's policies and procedures. There is no basis on this record for making an exception to the "Obey now, grieve later" maxim. Accordingly, we see no reason to overturn Carrier's assessed discipline.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: .
        Fancy J a -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of December 1991.