Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to and
 Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company
 (Former Wabash)
 Statement
 of Claim: Claim of D. J. Worley for removal of five days actual
 suspension assessed as a result of investigation held
 October 11, 1989 for failure to protect assignment.

        Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of the of this case by reason of the parties Agreement establishing this Board therefor.


        The Claimant, Track Laborer D. J. Worley, was regularly assigned as such on Monday, September 11, 1989 at Luther Yard, St. Louis, M0. His assigned rest days were Saturday and Sunday. On said Monday, Claimant telephoned Track Supervisor Jackson and said that he had pneumonia and requested to mark off on vacation September 11 to the 15. The Claimant assured Jackson that he would be at work the following Monday, September 18, 1989.


        However, the Claimant failed to protect his assignment on September 18. He also failed to return to work on the 19th. Track Supervisor Jackson telephoned the Claimant's home on September 19, about 7:15 AM and inquired about his whereabouts. The Claimant's daughter advised Mr. Jackson that she did not know where her father was. He returned to work on September 20, 1989.


        As a result of this incident the Claimant was cited to an investigation on the charge of being in violation of Safety Rule GR-6 and General Rule 24 of the Schedule Agreement by failing to protect his assignment on September 18 and 19. As a result of the said investigation, the Claimant was found culpable. He was assessed the discipline here appealed.


            Rule GR-6 reads:


        "Employees must report for duty at the designated time and place. They must be alert and attentive and devote themselves exclusively to the company service while on duty. They must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties or substitute others in their places with proper authority."

x

                                -2- Award No. 127 -l7(oa


                  Agreement Rule 24 - Detained from Work, reads:


              "An employee desiring to be absent from service must obtain permission from his foreman or the proper officer. An employee detained from work on account of sickness or for other unavoidable cause shall notify his foreman or the proper officer as early as possible."


              The Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled.


              There was sufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion of the Claimant's culpability of the charge placed against him. That Claimant's testimony and that of Carrier's witness, Roadmaster Jackson, differed and that the Carrier chose to believe Roadmaster Johnson as being more credible than the Claimant was not shown to be arbitrary or capricious in the exercise of such discretion. Clearly, on September 11, the Claimant did advise the Roadmaster that he had pneumonia and that he was going to take his scheduled vacation of one week. Said vacation ended on September 15. The record is clear that he failed to return on September 18 and 19 and if true belatedly attempted to contact the Roadmaster's office on September 19. Consequently, the Claimant failed to protect his assignment on September 18 and 19 or, in the alternative, to follow Rule GR-6 and 24.


              The discipline in light of the offense and Claimant's service record is not deemed unreasonable. This claim will be denied.


        Award: Claim denied.


                Clrrrit7a.Bxo .


        S. Hammons, r. Employee Member . F. Mil Her-, Jr. rier Member


                              ~XA~ 'v

                        Arthur . Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


        Issued December 31, 1991.