Docket No. MW-1158 -

                                  Case No. 25


                                                              i


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
 Statement
 of Claim: Carrier unfairly and unjustly dismissed Section Laborer
 A. T. Johnson from Carrier's service as. of July 30, 1977.
 Claimant Section Laborer Johnson shall be restored to
 service with all rights unimpaired, and that he shall be paid
 8 hours for each work day that he has missed, plus overtime
 that his gang worked while he has been off work.

 Findings: The Board, after' hearing, upon the whole record and 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, 1978, that it has jurisdiction
 of the parties'and the subject matter, and that the parties were given
 d~e notLce of the hearing helll.
 CLaiman: Trackman requested and received permission to lay off early on Tuesday. Juiy 19, 1977, as well as Wednesday, July 20, 1977. Claimant fai_ed to report back to work Thursday and Friday, July 22At3nd 24pd.~ The following work week, July 25 through July 29, saw Claimant still missing. =he Division Engineer, as a consequence of Claimant being absent wig ~)it!: oermission for soven (7) consecutive work days wrote L~aimant on my 30, '977 and a.;vised him that he had failed to comply with Agreeme=ictule 39 and chat his service with the company was being
      1 s ~'7

      -2- Public Law Board No. 2142 ;.

      Award No. 9.


                                                              t-


terminated.Agreement Rule 39 (Unauthorized Absence) effective April 1, 1976

 reads:
 "An employee who is absent from his assigned position without
 permission for seven (7) consecutive work days, will be x
 considered as having abandoned his position and resigned from
 the service."
 Claimant offered three "reasons" for his non-compliance with Rule 39.
 First, that he was treated at the out-patient clinic of the Missouri
 Pacific Employee's Hospital July 22 through August 1, 1977 when he was
 released to work therefrom; second, that he did not have his foreman's
 telephone number and lastly that he allegedly sent word by three different
 men that he was off due to injury. ._
 The Boar= finds that Claimant failed to meet his obligations under
 revised Rule 39 ouoted herein above. Claimant offered excuses and not
 reasons for his absences. The medical evidence offered did not support
 or prove that Claimant had been thereby prevented from contacting his
 supervisor as =o his absence.
 Claimant's obligation to protect his assignment included his
 ascertaining L::a means by which he will notify his supervisor when
 cause theretor arises of his inability to protect such assignment.
 Having knowledge of essential Carrier telephone numbers in order to
 fulfill his -jbl·gation to so notify was part and parcel of such obligation.
 Claimant, acc_;r7--=ng to the record, made no effort to obtain any such
 numbers.
 The obligation to notify Carrier or to request permission to be
 off is pers:nai. It is not transferable. Even if one were to accept
                        -3- Public Law Board No. 2142

                                  Award. No. 9


this excuse the failure of the method of communication utilized, to work rests solely with Claimant.
 Claimant having had.experiance under old Rule 39 was thoroughly conversant with his obligations and what Carrier expected of him. The Board concludes that Claimant failed to request permission to be absent and that having been absent for seven consecutive days the Company, pursuant to Rule 39, properly considered him resigned from the service.

    This claim will be denied.


Award: Claim denied.

 .r~u w.~ ,/fin. .
 A. J. unningha flnploy e M ber n Carrier Member

                  Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


                  Issued ar Falmouth, Massachusetcs, August 30, 1978.