The parties do not dispute that the Claimant timely contacted her foreman or her Assistant Roadmaster regarding her protracted absence from July 31, 2006 through August 10, 2006 for documented medical reasons (Exhibit 16) as required by the applicable Rule, BNSF Engineering Instructions Section 22.6 -Absence form Duty Procedure (Exhibit 10). BNSF Engineering Instructions Section 22.6 -Absence form Duty Procedure (Exhibit 10), requires that employees who will be absent contact either their Assistant Roadmaster or their Foreman.

The Claimant was deemed by the Carrier to be absent without proper authority because she did not notify the Roadmaster directly pursuant to his previous instruction. The Roadmaster, W.G. Buzbee, imposed discipline predicated on his unilateral determination that he alone was the proper authority whom the Claimant must contact for any future absences. However, the Roadmaster cannot unilaterally alter the procedures BNSF Engineering Instructions Section 22.6 -Absence form Duty Procedure established by the Carrier for notifying the Carrier when an employee will be absent. His unilateral imposition of such a directive was arbitrary and capricious, as it exceeded his authority to alter the procedures established by the Carrier and communicated to the Organization and to bargaining unit employees.

Furthermore, Section 22.6.1 specifies the sequence of discipline for unexcused absences or tardiness. The first violation results in "your Roadmaster or Foreman counseling you concerning the rules involved. This occurred when Roadmaster Buzbee previously spoke directly with the Claimant about her excessive absences. Section 22.6.1 states that a "Second violation will result in a formal Letter of Reprimand noting the rule violation placed on your personal file." According to the testimony at the investigatory hearing, such a Letter of Reprimand was prepared, but not delivered to the Claimant because she was absent on July 31, 2006 and thereafter. Consequently, immediately escalating the penalty for a

Section 22.6.1 also provides that "Leaving a voice mail message for the Roadmaster will not be considered contacting the proper authority." Consequently, the Claimant's telephone messages for the Roadmaster-which were left at times such as 9:56 p.m., 11:29 p.m., 3:03 a.m., and 5:00 a.m., when she could not have reasonably expected the Roadmaster to be present-did not satisfy the directive he had established for the Claimant. However, the Claimant did adequately comply with the rules governing calling off sick. The Claimant's failure to apply for suck a leave is immaterial and irrelevant because only employees who will absent for more than thirty days must seek a leave of absence pursuant to Rule 87. Thus, she was not absent without proper authorization.

The Board need not determine whether the Claimant also failed to follow a valid additional directive that she notify the Roadmaster directly, rather than by leaving a message, whenever she was going to be absent, or failed to heed an instruction by her foreman or by the Assistant Roadmaster to contact the Roadmaster, as the Claimant was not disciplined for insubordination or any infraction other than her being absent without proper authorization.

The Organization's allegation of witness tampering must be addressed. Although the Claimant or the Organization could have called the Claimant's foreman as a witness, the potential politics of calling him to testify after the Roadmaster allegedly told him to remain uninvolved suggest that even a formal notice to appear might have provided less than satisfactory testimony after the Roadmaster's admonition. This remark, if it occurred, did not affect the outcome of the investigation, as the parties did not dispute that the Claimant had contacted the foreman about her absences in a timely manner. Nevertheless, similar interference in future cases could invalidate otherwise proper discipline.

Finally, the original discipline was not defective for failure to specify the nature of the infraction, as the nature of the charge was clearly communicated to the Claimant. Citation of rule numbers allegedly violated is not required, provided the employee can reasonably discern the nature of the infraction. The Organization contended that the Carrier's amendment on September 13, 2006 to remove the waiver of the Claimant's right to contest the discipline that was included in the original thirty day suspension issued on August 30, 2006 resulted in a violation of the ten day time limit established by Rule 91 (b)(5), within which a decision must be rendered by the Carrier after an investigation has been completed. The Organization's contention in this regard is without merit, as the Claimant knew of the Carrier's original decision

are hereby rescinded. The Claimant shall be made whole for any missed time or other detriment attributable to the suspension, which shall be expunged from her record. Her absences between July 31, 2006 and August 10, 2006 shall be reclassified as authorized absences. We so find.

1 concur. ( ) 1 dissent.

t1

Dated: / ~~tser l-~ s