Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: and
 Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
 (Former ATSF Railway Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that: 1.The Carrier violated the Agreement on September 4, 2001, when it issued the Claimant, Mr. G. P. Mitchell a Formal Reprimand, for allegedly violating Maintenance of Way Operating Rule 1.15 Duty-Reporting or Absence. 2. As a result of the violation referred to in part (1), the Carrier shall remove the discipline mark from the Claimant's personnel record and make him whole for any - mime 1ost:"earn'er File No-14=01=0216. OrgtatizatiowFileNo: It)=13NI==-=-0115.CLM.]

 FINDINGS AND OPINION:
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the Carrier and Employees ("Parties") herein are respectively carrier and employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted by agreement and has jurisdiction of the dispute herein.

 The Claimant, Mr. G. P. Mitchell, was first hired by the Carrier on October 9, 1995, in its Maintenance of Way Department. In July, 2001, he was working as a Machine Operator on a system gang in or around Galesburg, Illinois. On July 10, 2001, he did not report for work and did not notify any supervisory staff, either the Roadmaster or the Foreman, of his absence.

 Consequently, on July 18, 2001, he was directed to attend an investigation on July 24, 2001, on the following charge:

The investigation was twice postponed by agreement of the Parties, and finally held on August 14, 2001.

 The following evidence was established by the combined testimony of Roadmaster Angel Alvarez and the Claimartt. The Claimant did not appear for work on July 10, 2001, nor did he notify either the Roadmaster or the Foreman. Mr. Alvarez stated that he requires employees

 plb4244_270
 Public Law Board No. 4244 Award No. 270
 Case No. 277

 under his supervision to contact him, personally, before the starting time of their assignments, to obtain permission to be absent. He stated that he carries a cellular telephone, turned on at all times. He added that it is insufficient for an employee to lay off work to the Foreman or anyone else; he must grant permission, personally.

 Mr. Alvarez further stated that this procedure is not set forth in written instructions, but asserted that he had verbally instructed all employees under his supervision. He said that he has famished employees with a business card with his telephone number imprinted, but modified his statement on cross examination:
















The Claimant described his working duties in the record. Employed as a Machine Operator on a System Gang, he works all over the Carrier's system, and is not assigned full-time to any particular location. He had been working in the vicinity of Galesburg since March, 2001, he said, but he reported to the location of his track machine, a backhoe, each day he worked, and not to a fixed location, such as a section house or shop.

 plb4244-270 2
 Public Law Board No. 4244 Award No. 270
 Case No. 277

 The Claimant stated that he did not call Mr. Alvarez because he did not have his telephone number. Instead, he attempted to call the Foreman on a number he had in his possession, but received a recorded message the number had been changed or was no longer in service. His testimony was not the epitome of clarity:



He entered into the record a-list -of telephone-numbegamd-by-the Caaierand posted in the Stronghurst section house, and the numbers thereon for Mr. Alvarez and the section house were incorrect, according to the record and his statement.

 Mr. Alvarez testified that the list was an old one. The Claimant testified that it was the only list posted.

 Following the investigation, the Claimant was issued a Formal Reprimand for violation of Maintenance of Way Operating Rule (MWOR) 1.15:

That decision was appealed by the Organization to the Carrier's highest designated ofcer, and has been progressed to this Board, not having been settled on the property.The Board will sustain the Organization's claim for the reasons discussed below.

 We agree with the Organization's position that the Carrier did not produce evidence to support the charge. True enough, the Claimant did not obtain permission from Mr. Alvarez to be absent on July 10, 2001. But even Mr. Alvarez could not say with certainty that the Claimant had been given his cellular telephone number, or that he had been instructed to call Mr. Alvarez personally. The Claimant's attempt to contact the Foreman, albeit without success, iundicates that he made a minimal effort to comply with the reporting requirement of Maintenance of Way Operating Rules 1.15.

 pib4244_270 3
 Public Law Board No. 4244 Award No. 270
 Case No. 277

 The Claimant was not regularly assigned to work under the supervision of Mr. Alvarez. He testified that he worked systemwide: "California, Washington, Wisconsin." As a transient worker in Mr. Alvarez's territory, he could not be expected to be as conversant with the requirements peculiar to that locale, as one holding a regular assignment there. With the limited information as his disposal, the Board believes he made a reasonable effort by trying to reach the Foreman.

 The Carrier, in its response to the Organization's appeal, referred to another disciplinary proceeding in which the Claimant is a principal. The Board believes the speculative nature of the references thereto cannot be considered. The transcript of evidence in this case, we notice, carefully avoids discussion of the Claimant's reason for not reporting on July 10, 2001, and we believe the Carriers discussion of matters outside the record in that case is inappropriate.

 -- - ate Claimant=s personal record is clear of any disciplinary entries prior to the instant case, and we are precluded from considering any discipline assessed after this proceeding.





R. B. Wehrli, Employe Member Thomas M. Rohling, Carrier M r

,Lsacr>h~.r V. Xt70'1

Date


plb4244 270
                            4