Award No. 1
 Case No. 2
 File CM-228
 Case No. 3
 File CM-229
 Parties Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada
 to and
 Dispute Southern Railway Company

 Statement Claim on behalf of T. K. Williams that he be paid five (6) hours at the pro
 of rata rate for being called in outside his bulletin hours. .
 Claim Claim on behalf of R. K. Williams that he be returned to service with all rights
 unimpaired including reimbursement of. any expenses incurred account of loss
 of coverage under health and welfare benefits end that beginning Mardt.30.
 1978 he be paid for alt time lost until he is returned to service.









remained unpromoted the Master Mechanic was able to accomodate Claimant's religious beliefs by giving him assignments which did not conflict therewith. However, Master Mechanic Lentz had forrarned Claimant William that at such time as he became promoted he would thereby be required to bid on an assignment and would be required to work each and every day of that assigned position.

 Claimant became promoted on February 15, 1978. However, Claimant's seniority did not entitle him to a Job with Fridays and Saturdays as rest days. He bid the vacancy of a car repairman and inspector on the third shift, Tuesday i through Saturday, with Sunday and Monday as assigned rest days. Claimant was assigned thereto on February 28, 1978. The following Friday. March 3. 1978, he called the General Foreman stating that although he was not sick he would not work that night. The following Friday, March loth, Claimant again did not work. However, he failed to notify any Carrier official that he would be absent.

 Claimant was requested, on March 13, 1978, to meet with Master Mechanic Lentz and General Foreman R. R. Roberts. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Claimant's absences on the two previous Friday nights and to explain to him that he had an obligation to protect his assignment on all five (5) days of his work week. Claimant reintereated that due to his religious beliefs he could not work on Friday nights. The following Friday night, March 17th, Claimant, again, did not work his assigned position.

 As a result of these three absences a preliminary investigation was held by his General Foreman on Saturday, March 18, 1978. Claimant was charged with failure to protect his assignment and unexcused absenteeism on three consecutive Friday nights in violation of Rule 30(b). At the conclusion of the preliminary investigation Claimant requested a formal investigation. It was held March 22, 1978. As a result of the formal investigation, Master Mechanic

Lentz concluded that Claimant was guilty as charged, and that.as a result of Claimant's oft-stated refusal to protect his assignment on Friday's in the future, it was determined that progressive discipline would not act as a corrective measure in Claimant's case. Therefore, Claimant was dismissed from seW ce by letter dated March 30, 1978.

 There can be no question here, but that Claimant was guilty for his failure to protect his assignment as charged. What is at test here is whether Claimant's absenteeism was excuseable because of Claimant's religious belief as is here contended.

 i The Board finds that Carrier's conclusion that Claimant's absences were not excuseable because of his religious beliefs is sound. proper and a conclusion that will be here upheld. The issue raised is not a new one in the industrial world. A use involving facts similar to those herein was brought before the United States Supreme Court in Trans world Airlines, Inc. vs. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977). There. the grievant, Hardison,was employed in a department. which, as here, operated around the clock. Employee Hardison was subject to a seniority system similar to that of Claimant's. There, grievant Hardison, like Claimant Williams here, became a convert to the worldwide Church of God. There, as here, Hardison informed his Supervisor of his religious beliefs. There, as here, attempts were mode by that Carrier to accommodate hire. However, such were only temporarily successful. There, as here. Hardison did not have sufficient seniority to hold a position with his Sabbath as an off day. TWA. like Carrier here, agreed to allow the union to seek a change of work assignments, but that union. like the organization in this dispute, was not willing to breach the seniority system. TWA, as did this Carrier. rejected a proposal to allow the employs to work only four days week contending that such would imperil critical functions in its operations.
 '. Page 4 . _ .
 When no aceomodation could be reached. Hardison refused to work Saturdays and
 was discharged from service.

 Hardison brought an action for injunctive relief against TWA and the union under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that his discharge donatituted religious discrimination. That action ultimately wound up before the'. UV S. Upraaie.Court: Hardison and the EEOC arguedrbefore the Supreme Court, that the statuatory obligation to accomodate the religious needs of an employee, imposed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, takes precedence over both the collective bargaining Agreement and the seniority rights of other employees, thereby obligating TWA to order someone else to work Hardison's assignment on the Sabbath. In reply thereto the Court stated in part:

        "Collective bargaining aimed at affecting workable and enforceable agreements between management and labor, lies at the core of our

        ' national labor policy and seniority provisions are universally included in these contracts. Without a clear and express indication from Congress, we cannot agree with Hardison and the EEOC that an agree-upon seniority system must give way when necessary to accomodate religious observances. ID.st79.


The Court, in reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals, rejected all of the three 'reasonable alternatives' suggested by the lower Court. In rejecting the alternative that the seniority system should be breached in order to arrange a "swap` between Hardison and another employee, the Court held, that unless the seniority system is shown to have a discriminatory purpose, following that seniority system 1s not an unlawful employment practice even though the system might haw "discriminatory consequences". It held:

        "It would be anomalous to conclude that by reasonable accoaodatioe Congress meant that an employer must deny the shift in job preference of some employees, as well as deprive than of their contractual rights, in order to accommodate or prefer the religious needs of others, and we conclude that Title VII does not require an employer to go that far."


Thus, the Court in TWA found that Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1914 does not require an employer to violate seniority provisions or to discriminate
 Award No. 1 Page 5 against sow employees in order to enable others to observe their Sabbath. Furthermore, it does not require the employer to bear more than de minimum additional costs to accamodate one employee's religious needs when no such costs were incurred to give other employees the days off that they wanted. It found that such a requirement would be a due hardship and would involve an equal treatment of employees on the basis of religion.
 I The 1161 ruling has been followed in three recent circuit court of appeals cases. Rohr vs. Nesia~rn Electric. 552 F. 2d 829 (8th Cir. 1977). upholding the discharge of an employee who refused to work his shift on his Sabbath where modification of the seniority system (four-day work week) or overtime payments were the only available means of accomodation; Chrysler Corporation v. Mann. 561 F. 20 1282 (8th Cir. 1977), upholding the dismissal of an employee who had shown disinterest in explaining his religious needs to his employer and who did not attempt to use the leave of absence procedure of the collective bargaining agreement to cover his religious absences, but rather insisted on serving punishment with his employer would have waived, and later refused the employer's offer to reinstatement with full seniority; Jordan v. North Carolina National Bank, 555 F. 2d 72 (4th Cir. 1977), upholding the reaction of an applicant who requested a guarantee from the employer that she would never have to work on Saturdays, since such a guarantee would constitute an overdue burden on the conduct of the employer's business

 In applying TWA to the instant case, the Board concludes that Carrier has acted in good faith. It made reasonable efforts to accomodate Claimant. Notwithstanding the highly cooperative attitude of Master Mechanic Lent: and his willingness
 to accommodate Claimant. said Master Mechanic properly and most timely placed
 Claimant on notice that onpe he (Claimant) was promoted then he (the Master Mechanic) must adhere to the contract and that Claimant would be expected to work all assigned days. In fact. Claimant, during the investigation. conceded
                                        t Page o


        that every effort had been made to accomdate his religious beliefs. Claimant was told during his employment interview that the railroad was a 365 day a year continuous operation. He indicated on his employment application that he would work any day any shift.


        We do not deem it necessary to fill this record by citing precedential Board authority which supports the right of Carrier to dismiss employees who do not protect their assignment on a full time basis. Carrier has the right to expect its employees to fulfill their obligation to work all of the assigned work days and to protect the duties for which they were hired. See, among others, Awards 6710 and 7348 (Second Division) also PLB 868, Award 41, and also Third Division Award 14601. There can be no question but that Claimant would not work on Friday nights. Claimant perhaps stated it best in the investigation, 'I told you that I wouldn't work on Friday's, no way I could work on Friday nights.". In the circumstances dismissal was the Justified and appropriate measure of discipline in the instant use.


        The Board in regards to Case CM-228 finds that Claimant is not entitled to be paid for attending the March 13, 1978 noting. Hero the Master Mechanic was again trying to accomodate Claimant in finding a solution to his problem. We do not construe that such meeting falls within the language of Rule 5. which reads: "Employees called or notified to return to work outside bulletined hours shall receive pay for no less than five (5) hours". Claimant was neither called to return nor to perform work. In fact no work or service was performed by him under the &formmntioned Call role. Such claim will be denied.


Award Claim fed.

                                            H

            Employee are er r

            4·. an art, a roan

            and Neutral Mwwber

Issued at Wilmington, Delaware, March 31, 1979,