PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of nay Employes
 TO
 DISPUTE The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
 STATEMENT
 OP CLAIM "Claim that Valley Division Trackman J. ;. Podriguez
 be reinstated as a Miscellaneous :Machine operator
 and compensated for the difference between the
 Trackman's rate and the Burrow Crane Operators rate,
 account improperly disqualified as a Miscellaneous
 Machine Operator following investigation held on
 December 5, 1980.".
 FINDINGS Upon the whole record, the 5oard finds that the parties
 bereim are C7urlier and Employes rlthin .the meaning of the Railway
 Labor Aet,-awamended, and that this Board is duly constituted
 under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and
 the subject matter,
 Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a miscellanec::s machine operator. While Claimant sras operating uurro Crane AT-749 on November 1, 1980, it turned over causing extensive damage to the crane and Claimant sustaininq a personal injury. Claimant was charged for violation of Rules d, L and 1056 of "?ides Haintenance of nay Structures", and Rule 224, "Safety Rules for Santa :'e izployes", reading as followst

              "Rule As Safety is of the first importance in the discharge of duty."


              *Rule-Ll Employes must observe the condition of equipment and the tools used in pazforminr their duties. Defective tools must be put in safe condition before they a.;e used, and

                                    Award ho. 15 ~3308

                                    Page No. 2


              employer should report defective tools and equipment. r~Quiyuaent and tools must be returned to their proper place after use. A report must be made promptly of missing equipment or tools."


              "Rule 1056, Roadway Machine Operators. aesponsibility. They will be held responsible for the safety, care, maintenance and performance of the machines to which they are assigned. e1 wire report will be made promptly to the proper authority when a machine is out of service or not performing properly.


              They will be governed by instructions of motor car maintainers regarding the maintenance and operation of machines.


            Upon taking over a machine and again upon completing assignment, they will render to the general foreman. roadmanter or signal supervisor under whom they may be working, a report of the condition of the machine= also listing the small tools and repair parts on hand. Operating manuals and parts books will also be listed. Copies of all reports shall be made to division engineer and supervisor of work equipment."


              "Rule 224· Crane or hoist operator must never lift nor drop a load with a sudden jerk] all handling must be steady."

Following formal investigation hela on jeceuzer 5, 1560, claimant was disqualified as a miscellaneous machine operator.
 We have carefully reviewed in detail the transcript of the Hearing held in this matter and find sufficient evidence of probative value was presented to support the charges..
 We do not find that Carrier'· penalty of disqualification was exasssivv or too severe, especially in view of the fact Claimant had received discipline, some seven months prior to this incident,
                                    PLB - 3308 _

                                    Award No. 15

                                    Page No. 3


!or the mishandling o! a Burro Crane. 'ate will not disturb the discipline. He find that the Agreement was not violated.

 AWARD Claim denied.

      Clarence H. H qtoa

      Neutral Memb

      Carrier MS0b r Organization :m


Dated at Chicago, Illinois March 1, 1983
                PUBLIC LAN EK3ARD h0. 3308


                                    Award No. 16

                                    Case No. 17


IaiM&R brotherhood of Maintenance of Kay Employts
 20
 DISPUTE The xtc::1son, Inpeka aac :saiita fee s:ailway Company
 3TATMA%NT
 OF CLAIM "Claim for reinstatement of former '1'rackman
 M. ~i. Carrington# vidzdle ~~ivision, 'with his
 correct seniority, vacation, all other benefit
 rights unimpaired and compensated for all wage
 loss and/or otherwise made whole beginning
 May 10, 1982.' account the claimants name
 being improperly removed from the seniority
 roster for failure to respond to recall."
 FINDINGS Upon the whole record, the Board finds that the
 parties herein are Carrier and Employes within tae meaning of the
 Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that t:^.is -'oard is duly consti
 tuted under Public Law G>-a156 and has jurisdiction of the parties
 and the subject matter.
 'Phe Claimant was a furloughed employe subject to recall to service. In a latter dated April 23, 1982, Claimant was recalled to service, effective may 10, 1982. Fe was also inatructed to contact the Carrier on either Bay 6 or Nay 7, 1902 for his assign ment. On May 9, 1982, Claimant contacted the :Carrier and advised he could not report on hay 10, 1982. The ~_arrt,~r rave him permission not to report on May 10, 1982, but he was expected to report on May 11, 1982. Claimant did not respond to rec«4i u,L ::ay 71, 1982 as directed. In a letter dated :day 12, 1982,.carriarr advised Claimant that his name was being renbored iron the seniority roster in accurdancs with the provision- c :-: , ~. £: .: y .; ~'· ° : r ~P (c) ^°. Lei.? Agreement.
                                      Award No. 16 - 33d g Page No. 2


      The pertinent part of Rule 2, section (c) reads as follows


          "xaaa failure to report on the date indicated in the notification of recall, not to exceed fifteen (15) calendar days from date of notification of recall forwarded to the employe's last 3movn address, without a satisfactory reason, will result in forfeiture of seniority in the class where recalled."

The Organization contends that Claimant was discharged without the benefit of a formal investigation in violation of Rule 13DISCIPLINE.
 Rule 2, Section (c) is self-executing and provides that failure to respond in timely fashion results in an employe being considered resigned. our conclusion that the rule is self-executing and provides for an automatic loss of seniority is consistent with numerous awards of various Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. This type of self-executing rule is not within the contemplation of Rule 13.
 We have reviewed this record in detail and find no probative evidence to shoe Claimant complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 2, Section (c). Therefore, Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

 AWARD Claim denied.

                                2 2G 'C L'

                                ar e

                                Neutral Member,


    Carrier M Organ zation M


Dated at Chicago, Illinois
 March 1, 1983