Mopac File 247-6910


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to and
 Dispute: Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 Statement
 of Claim: 1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement when
 Trackman Luis Gonzales was unjustly dismissed
 on December 11, 1984.

 2. Claimant Gonzales shall now be paid for eight (8) hours each work day, including any holidays falling therein and any overtime which would have accrued to him, beginning November 21, 1984, and continuing until he is reinstated to service with seniority, pass and vacation rights unimpaired. Findings: The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated January 5, 1959, that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.
 Claimant Trackman was dismissed for being absent without proper authority and for his failure to comply with the instructions of his foreman.
 He was assigned as a Trackman on Gang 5386 working near Austin, Texas. On October 23, 24, and 25, 1984 Claimant failed to report for work and he failed to notify anyone of his absence.
 Claimant arrived at the worksite of October 26. Ilis Foreman instructed

 go home and to report for work on Monda; At that time the Foreman also instructe~ he was going to he absent for any reason

 he must contact either he, in order to receive proper

 ward No. 238

 the Foreman,

 authority to

 late on the morning him (Claimant) to

 October 29, 1984. I Claimant that if ~ in the future that or the Road Master, do so.

 Claimant failed to report for work on Monday, October

 He also failed to secure proper authority

 Claimant was absent without proper

 29th, as instructed.

 to be absent therefrom. authority continuously

 time he, for reasons

 until November 21, 1984, at which

 unknown, arbitrarily reported to Gang

 5366, headquartered at San Antonio, Texas.
 Claimant, on November 21, 1984 was notified to attend a formal investigation in connection with absenting himself without proper authority and his failure to comply with instructions from his Foreman. Claimant failed to appear thereat although his representative was there. Despite a delay in the investigation, in order to permit Claimant additional time to appear, the investigation was then held in absentia.
 Carrier concluded therefrom that Claimant was guilty as charged. He was dismissed from service as discipline therefor. Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under Rule 12.
 SBA 279 -3- Award No. 238

        There was sufficient evidence to support the Carrier's conclusion of Claimant's guilt of the charges placed against him.

        Claimant had the duty to protect his assignment. lie had a further duty when unable to do so to notify the designated representative for that purpose. Claimant failed on both accounts despite having been so told by his Foreman.

        In the circumstances, the discipline assessed is found to be reasonable. This claim will be denied. Award; Claim denied.


        hT'. ristie, Employee Member J J S annon, Carrier Member


            A ur T. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


            Issued August 23, 1986.