Parties to Dispute
Brotherhood of Maintenance of )
 Way Employees ) Case No. 27
 1
 vs ) Award No. 24
 Burlington Northern Railroad )

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM






      The Claimant was advised to attend an investigation to

determine facts and place responsibility, if any, in connection
 -with his alleged absence from duty without proper authority.
 After the investigation was held the Carrier notified the Claimant
 that he had been found guilty as charged and he was assessed a
 thirty i30) day suspension. This suspension was appealed by the
 organization up to and including the highest Carrier officer-de
 signated to hear such before this case was docketed before this
 Public Law Board for final adjudication.- -
 Regular hours for covering the assignmentheld by the Claimant who held position of Water Service Helper was 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM with one half hour off for lunch. On the day in question the Claimant was off work without permission from 7:30 to 8:15 AM
 Public Law Board No. 4161 (Award No. 24; Case No. 27)

 at which latter time he called supervision advising that he would
 be late for his shift. The Claimant was subsequently advised to -
 report to work for just the afternoon of the shift, at 12:30 PM.
 According to testimony by the B&B Supervisor in Minneapolis
 he explicitly advised the members of the Water Crew that they
 could not lay off except for a bona fide reason because the crews
 could "not work shorthanded". The policy outlined was that if a
 member of the Crew had to take time off they "were to call the Fore-
 man before... starting time". (Emphasis added)This-policy was-out- ..
 line totthe crew members just the day before the Claimant called
 in 45 minutes late, and evidence shows that the Claimant was
 present when the policy was explained to crew members. Further,
 in his own testimony at the investigation the Claimant admits that
 he did not report to work at 7:30 onthe day in question, and that
 he did not have authority to be absent from work.
 The Rules at bar read as follows, in pertinent part:
 Rule 570
 Employees must report for duty at the designated time
 and place. They must be alert, attentive, devote them
 selves exclusively to Company service while on duty.
      They must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties -

    with or substitute others in theirplace without proper

    authority.


      Rule 576


      Employees must comply with instructions from proper -

      authority ....


During the investigation is querried by the Carrier officer conducting the investigation in the following manner. Q. "Do you understand that Rule (570)?" A. "Yes, I do".
 Public Law Board No. 4161 (Award No. 24; Case No. 27)

    Q. "The rule states that employees must report for duty at the designated time and place---did you report at the designated time?" A. "No, I didn't."


    Q. "Rule 576 states employees must comply with instructions from proper authority .... (D)id you comply with those instructions on September 9th?" A. "Not completely, no." According to the Claimant he did not comply with the instructions because he overslept. He overslept because he knocked his alarm clock over during the night and it malfunctioned. It is also his testimony that he had trouble sleeping because of an on-the-job injury received the day before. The Board must note, however, that although the Claimant testifies about this injury he had not reported it to either the B&B Supervisor nor the Water Service Foreman prior to the time he overslept and the Board must conclude that this remains an undefensible argument for oversleeping. The Board must also note that even if the argument was defensible, arbitral forums have consistently rejected oversleeping, in itself, as defense for employees not showing up to cover their assignement at the proper time, and that Boardssuch as this have routinely sustained Carrier's right, furthermore, to discharge employees

for such infractions. (See for example, on this property, the -
 conclusions of Public Law Board 2746, Award 15; and Public Law
 Board 3460, Award 6). on the record as a whole, the Board must
 conclude that the instant claim before it cannot be sustained and
 that the Claimant is guilty of t rule infractions, as charged.

 AWA The claim is denied.

                      dward L. Suntrup, Neutral Member


                      M xine WM Tim ·qrman, Carrier Member


                        u~ G. Glover Employee Member


Date: