Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
 Statement
 of Claim: The Carrier violated the Agreement when it arbitrarily
 removed Mr. A. Smith from service. Claimant A. Smith
 be restored to service with all rights unimpaired and
 paid for all time lost beginning on August 4, 1977.
 Findings: The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and a11. evidence,
 finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning
 of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted
 by Agreement dated January 23, 2978, that it has jurisdiction of the
 parties and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due
 notice of the hearing held.
 Ch -rmaht Trackman was scheduled to work but he failed to report
 for duty on July 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, August 1, and 2, 1977. During such
 period, Claimant made no attempt to contact his Foreman or any Supervisor
 to request permission to be absent from work on the dates in question.
 Under date of August 2, 1977 the Division Engineer advised
 Claimant
 "This letter is to inform you that you are in violation
 of Rule 39.
 Rule 39 reads:
 'An employee who is absent from his assigned position
 without permission for 7 consecutive work days will be
 considered as having abandoned his position and
 resigned from service.'
 Please tuna in any Company property issued to you
 to pour Foreman."
 The Employees questioned the fact that the Track Supervisor had
 written the Division Engineer, an August 2, 1977, advising that Claimant
 had been absent seven days and that said act of sending the letter on
 the seventh day of Claimant's absence indicated that Carrier had

                            -2- Award No. 21


prejudged and that it was prejudiced to Claimant. The Employees alleged that Claimant had been ill and that two fellow employees had so reported this alleged fact to Claimant's Foreman.
 The Board finds that while the appearance of the situation may give form to such an allegation, the facts do not provide substance thereto. Our Board held in its Award No. 9 that: "The obligation to notify Carrier or to request permission to be off is personal. It is not transferable. Even if one were to accept this excuse, the failure of the method of communication utilized to work rest solely with Clai"Ant."
 Carrier Representatives denied information as to Claimant's
 alleged illness from fellow employees. The medical evidence offered
 stated:
 "Patient states he was sick for four days before
 July 29th.
 Remarks: URI."
 It is noted that such alleged illness could not deter Claimant from complying with Rule 39 by- contacting the Carrier as to his being absent. We find that the medical evidence offered by Claimant neither supported nor proved that Claimant had been thereby prevented from contacting his supervisor as to his absence.

        This Board also pointed out in its Award No. 3:

        "One fundamental rule governing the conduct of an

        Employee is that he must report for work at the time

        and place designated by his employer. Inherent in such

        a rule is the corollary obligation to request permission

        to be absent careen the employee is not able to report

        to work.or to report to work on time."

Here, it has been successfully demonstrated that Claimant, who had a poor work record, failed to comply with Rule 39 and, in such circumstances, we are impelled to find that the Carrier's position herein should prevail.

 Award: Claim denied.

 J. . Paloni,'Employee Member M . Ha- , Carrier Member

                        -lid ~~C~ GI~/G~

                    Ait r T. Van Wart, Chair and Neutral Member


                    Issued at Falmouth, Massachusetts, September 26, 1979.