CASE NO. 28


PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
 TO ) and
 DISPUTE ) BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD (Former Fort Worth
 and Denver Railway Company)
 STATEMENT 1. That the Car r ier violated the provisions of
 OF CLAIM: the current Agreement when it suspended Trackman
 Mr. Larry Rasco for a period of thirty (30) days
 without first according claimant a fair and impar
 tial investigation, said action being arbitrary,
 capricious and in abuse of discretion.
 2. That Claimant be compensated for all time lost
 and that the charges be stricken from his record.
 FINDINGS: By reason of the Memorandum of Agreement signed
 November 16, 1979, and upon the whole record and
 all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are employe
 and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,
 and that it has jurisdiction.

              Trackman Larry Rasco, an employee of this Carrier -

since September 26, 1979, was on October 21, 1982, notified of "sus
 pension for 30 days from the service of the Fort Worth and Denver
 Railway Company for violation of Rule 570 of the Burlington Northern
 Safety Rules and General Rules, in connection with your absenting
 yourself from duty without proper authority on September 27, 1982,
 while employed on Extra Gang No. One, as evidenced by a formal invest
 igation afforded you October 6, 1982, Fort Worth, Texas."

 Rule 570 of the Burlington Northern Safety Rules and General Rules, Form 15001, August 81, reads:
 PLB - 2529 AWARD NO. 21 (page 2)
 CASE NO. 28
 "EMPLOYEES MUST REPORT FOR DUTY AT THE DESIGNATED
 TIME AND PLACE. THEY MUST BE ALERT, ATTENTIVE AND
 DEVOTE THEMSELVES EXCLUSIVELY TO THE COMPANY'S SER
 VICE WHILE ON DUTY. THEY MUST NOT ABSENT THEMSELVES
 FROM DUTY, EXCHANGE DUTIES WITH OR SUBSTITUTE OTHERS
 IN THEIR PLACE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORITY."
 The transcript of investigation shows the following
 answers by the Claimant:

              "Q. Did you work on September 27, 1982?

              A. No sir, I didn't.


                  Q. Did you secure permission from the Assistant Foreman, or anybody, to be absent?

              A. No sir."


It is admitted that Claimant did not work on September 27, 1982 and did not obtain permission to be absent.

 Claimant testified that on September 27, "I did call in, but I didn't know where anybody was at. I didn't get the information Donnie (the Assistant Roadmaster) gave the Extra Gang. I was not there or something. I didn't know how to get in touch with anyone. I did make a couple of attempts to call the Main Offices, but I failed. No one was there so I couldn't get in touch. Finally later, I did-leave a message with someone." (Tr., p.3)

 The Assistant Roadmaster, in response to the question: "Is it relatively easy to contact you or someone else?" stated: "Yes. I have given my number,and the hours I will be at the Bristol International, and if not reached that way, they can call the Decatur Depot - and reach me via radio. They were all given instructions. All employ- - ees of Extra Gang No. 1 were given these instructions." (Tr., p. 2).

              The record further shows the following:


                  "Q. Well, September 28th, did you get in touch with someone at North Yard to give the message to Hancock?

                  A. Ugh, I got in touch with someone. I left a message with someone...


                  Q. Well, you got in touch with North Yard on September28th at 1:30 P.M. Do you understand that the YarOffice at North Yard is a 24 hour station?

                  A. No sir, I didn't. I do need to get all that information from my Assistant Roadmaster. I didn't have it. I didn't know how to get in touch.

PLB - 2529 AWARD N0. 21 (page 3)
 CASE NO. 28
 Q. Do you know your Roadmaster's name?
 A. Yes sir.
 Q. Did you check information at Wichita Falls for
 his phone number?
 A. No sir." (Tr., p. 4)
 "Q. Do you live at Childress, Texas?
 A. Yes sir.
 Q. Are you aware that Assistant Roadmaster Hancock
 lives at Childress?
 A. Yes sir.
 Q. Did you make any attempt to contact him the weekend
 of the 25th or 26th?
 A. No sir." (Tr., p. 5).

 The evidence of record shows, in letter of December 17, 1982, to the Organization, (Carrier's Exhibit No. 4), that

 "Mr. Rasco's service record is punc tuated with discipline for not complying with Carrier's rules concerning absence without proper authority. September 30, 1981, he was censured for violation of Rule 665; November 2, 1981, he was suspended for five days for violation of Rule 570;
 April 29, 1982, he was given 15-day suspension, for Rule 570, and Sept- -
 ember 9, 1982, received actual 15-day suspension for violating Rule
 570, all in addition to his 30-day suspension of October 21, 1982."
Absenteeism is a grave offense, and in a proper case may result in dismissal, especially where progressive discipline polic;r has been pursued by the Carrier and the employee has failed to correct his behavior. Uncontrolled absenteeism produces chaos and is not to be condoned. The testimony of the Assistant Roadmaster reflects the existence of adequate procedures and instructions to all employees in Extra
 Gang No. 1, including Claimant, to enable Claimant to comply with tae °-
 rules concerning absenteeism. The employee has a reasonabls responsib
 ility to become informed and to exercise reasonable efforts in complyi.zg
 with the rules concerning absenteeism. Failure to exercise reasonable
 care and effort by the employee subjects him to the foreseeable conseq
 uences of discipline. Here, the Claimant was censured, warned, suspend-,-,.
 and disciplined for failure to comply with the rules concerning absent
 eeism. The Carrier made it plain and clear to him, through progressive
 discipline, that his violations would not be tolerated. The Claimant,
 apparently, has failed to understand the seriousness of his violation.
 PLB - 2529 AWARD NO. 21 (page 4)

                                        CASE NO. 28


The Board cannot find merit in the Claimant's argument that the dental surgery required about the time and performed on September 29, 1982 (Employes Exhibit A-2) excuses or mitigates Claimant's violation of Rule 570. There was no medical emergency or medical condition within the provisions of Rule 30 (c), in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, justifying Claimant's failure to comply with Rule 570. There is no showing why Claimant could successfully communicate with the Carrier on September 28 but could not do so on September 27 or prior thereto.

                      A W A R D


              1. The Carrier is not in violation of the Agreement.


              2. The claim is denied.


;t
              JOSEPH.LAZAR, CHAIRMAN AND NEUTRAL MEMBER


C. F. FOOSE, EMPLOYE MEMBER B. J. MASON, CARRIER MEMBER

 DATED: _ . r -