r

















October 6, 1978 and never did report back again or contact any Carrier representative. Subsequently, under date of October 18, 1978, Claimant was served with a written notice of investigation reading as follows:

        Attend investigation in the Conference Room, Division Office Building, Fargo, North Dakota, at 1:30 PM, Tuesday, October 24, 1978, for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility in connection with your alleged failure to protect your assignment as section laborer on AFE Gang working at West-Fargo, North Dakota. October lo, 1.78 and subsequent dates.


        ArranFe for representatives and/or witnesses, if desired, in accordance with governing provisions of prevailing ^chedule rules.


        Acknowledge receipt of this notice by affixing your signature on attached copy of this letter.


        W. A. Hatton ' Superintendent WET:slh '


        cc: Mr. M. C. Schlaugh, Local Chairman BMWE

        Mr. W. B. Vadnais

        Mr. R. H. Preuss


The hearing was postponed at the request of'the Organization and was held on October 31, 1978. Following the hearing, Claimant was notified of his dismissal from service, as follows:

        Effective this date, 'rove^ber 21, 1^7", you are dismissed from the scrvice of the (Iurlincton Northern Inc., for violation of General RLTIA A ?n.d Pule 7 of horn 151!77, R!! Selective Safety and II/bl Rules when cbsentinn yourself fro- duty without proper authority as section laborer, AFE Gang, I-lest Farno, North Dakota, on October 16, 197?, and subseq,;ent dates as per testimonies developed at, investigation held at Faro, I'!orth Dakota, on October 31, 1P7g.

                    Awd. 44 - 2206


        Relinquish any and all Company property, including free transportatior, that has been issued to you.


        Achnowledne receipt of this letter by affixing your signature on attached copy.


        L. P,. S?ndvi':

        Train-aster-Road Foreman

        ORL: jri


        cc: ''r. 11. C. Schlauch, Local Chairman, BM14E

        1'r. C. A. Y,1 ippenes, Vice Ceneral Chairman, BMWE

        !!r. ." B. Vad.^.ais

        Mr. R. 11. Preuss

        Personal Record

        File: 301-11a0"4;


The Organization immediately appealed the discipline on grounds that the discharge allegedly violated Rules 15 and 40. The claim was denied at all levels of handling and ultimately was appealed to this Board.
 Close analysis of the hearing notice, the transcript of investigation and the dismissal letter shows that Carrier's local management on October 18, 1978 accused Claimant and subsequently convicted and disciplined him for failure to protect his assignments on October 16, 1978 and subsequent dates, i.e., for the two-day period October 16-17, 1978. Carrier's local management drafted these charges and, for reasons known only to themselves, confined the charge to the period on and after October 16, 1978, without any reference to the period from October 6, 1978 forward. Accordingly, the period October 6-15, 1978 never was under challenge by Carrier and cannot properly be considered in determining Claimant's culpability or in assessing the proper quantum of discipline.
 Focusing exclusively upon the period properly within the scope of the charge against Claimant, we find in the transcript of investigation'the
                    Awd. 44 - 2206


colloquy between Claimant and the hearing officer:

        4A. n. Mr. Anderson, I'm goina to ask you again. Did you contact anybody on the railroad advising then that you were not going to return to work after the 16th of October, 197°?

      A. i contacted a foreman in Edgeley by the name of Roger Anderson.


47. 0. Is Roger Anderson, the foreman at Edgeley, your immediate supervisor?
      A. No, he's not.


        4°. Q. Did you expect Mr. Anderson at Edaeley to contact the local Maintenance o Way people here to tell them that you would not be available for work?

        A. No, I did not inform anybody about not returning because I hadn't made my mind up yet.


        4?. Q. Rule 7 of the Selective Safety and Maintenance of Way Rules for Seasonal Employees reads as follows:


        "Employees must report for duty at the designated time and place. They must he alert, attentive, and devote themseives exclusively to company service while on duty. They'must net absent the^iselves from duty, exchana- duties with, or substitute others in their place without proper authority."


        Mr. Anderson, do y-.i ~inderstand the provisions of Rule 7 that you must report for duty at the designated time and place, and that you are not to be absent from duty without proper authority from your supervisor?

      A. Yes, sir, I do understand... (inaudible).


        5n. Q. Were you absent from duty on October 16 and the days following October 16 without obtaining permission from the proper authority?

      A. Yes, sir, I'm guilty of that.


We note that in the claim Mr. Anderson seeks reinstatement and back pay from November 21, 1978 forward. Apparently this is an implicit assertion that he was medically unfit for service until that date. In the context of the present record, it was incumbent upon Claimant to prove his inability to work due to sickness, especially with respect to the critical dates of October 16 and 17, 1978. However, he provided not one iota of evidence and not even a bare assertion that he was sick and unable to work on those dates. From the available evidence, including Claimant's statements, it appears that he was absent without permission on October 16 and 17, 1981 because he could
 Awd. 44 - 2206

 not decide whether he still wanted to work for Carrier. We find that Carrier was not unreasonable in treating this unjustified failure to appear for work or to notify Carrier management of his inability to do so as an abdication of his employment rights. See Awards 3-14601 and 3-20178.

 AWARD
Claim denied.

 Carrier Member

 / I ~~,,/-EmployeyMember

 Dana E. Eischen, airman

Date: ('0/7 lel