Case No. 9


                  STATEMENT OF CLAIM


      1. Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that the Carrier violated the provisions of the current'Agreement when it arbitrarily removed Extra Gang Laborer J. S. Luse from its service for allegedly violating Rule 48(k).


      2. The Carrier will now be required to reinstate Extra Gang Laborer J. S. Luse to its service with seniority and all other rights restored unimpaired and compensation for all wage loss suffered.


                      FINDINGS


      By letter dated January 14, 1985, the Claimant was noti-


fied as follows:

      This is to advise that the Company's records indicate you have been absent from the service without proper authority for the following five (5) consecutive workday period -- January 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1985.

                                  PLB No. 3689 Award No. Page :.'


      Rule 48(k) of the Agreement between the Carrier and the Organization, reads as follows:


        "Employes absenting themselves from their assignments for five (5) consecutive working days without proper authority shall be considered as voluntarily torfeiting their seniority rights and employment relationship, unless ,justifiable reason is shown as to why proper authority was not obtained.


      You are, therefore, considered as having voluntarily forfeited your seniority rights and employment relationship.


It is well established that rules such as Rule 48(k) are self-executing, are non-disciplinary in nature, and do not require an investigative hearing prior to implementation. The Rule does, however, permit the showing of "justifiable reason . . . as to why proper authority was not obtained". On behalf of the Claimant, the Organization attempted to show such reasons for the Claimant's absence. The Carrier demonstrated in the course of the claim handling procedure that, contrary to allegation, there was no convincing evidence that the Claimant had, in 'fact, given any notification to the Car-rter as to his absence for the cited period prior to the conclusion of the period. In further support of its action, the Carrier pointed to the severe absenteeism of the Claimant during the months
                                  PLB No. 3bx9

                                  Award No. 9

                                  Page 3


just prior to January 1985. The Organization is correct that such past record is of no direct consequence in the application of Rule 48(k). However, this past record lends additional credibility to the Carrier's account of no-show nonotice, contrary to the pleading of the Claimant that soma notice had been given.

                      A W A R D


      Claim denied.


      HERBERT L. MARX, JR.,. Chairman and Neutral Member


                E.R. MYERS, Carr er Member


                C.F. FOOSE, Employee Member


New York, N. Y.

 DATED:

 December 17, 1985