Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Union Pacific Railroad
 (Former Missouri Pacific Railroad Company)

 Statement
 of Claim: (1) Carrier violated the Agreement, especially Rule 12,
 when Trackman G. M. Findley was dismissed from service on
 December 1, 1989.

        (2) Claim in behalf of Mr. Findley for wage loss suffered beginning November 7, 1989, until reinstated with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired.


Findings: The Board has jurisdiction by reason of the parties
 Agreement establishing this Board therefor.

        Claimant Trackman G. M. Finley, was dismissed from service following the holding of a formal investigation on December 20, 1989 on the charge`of his failure to protect his job assignment from October 11, 1989 on.


        Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under Rule 12 - Discipline.


        There was sufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant's culpability. The record reflects that Claimant had not returned to work on October 11. Nor had he shown up for work since then. The record further reflects that Claimant had been instructed on the proper method of requesting authority to be absent and he had failed to properly do so. His Foreman testified that he had talked to the Claimant on the morning of October 12 when the Claimant requested to be again absent on that day. The Claimant did not offer any excuse for his absence on October 11. Further, the Claimant did not work on October 12 even though he was denied the authorization to be absent.


        Claimant Finley testified that he was aware of the proper procedure to follow concerning absenteeism. However, he did not call in to request authorization to be absent on October 11. In fact, after the conversation with Track Foreman Strump on October 2, Claimant admitted that he made

                        -2- Award No. 449


        no attempt to contact anyone at the railroad concerning his subsequent absences, which included his new foreman after he had been transferred to another gang. Consequently, in light thereof it is clear that the Claimant failed to protect his assignment beginning October 11, 1989.


        While offering an excuse of a "medical emergency" on October 12 the record is absolutely silent thereon.


            The Second Division Award 6710 (Dolnick) points out:


        "Each employee has an obligation and a duty to report in time and work his scheduled hours,.unless he has good and sufficient reason to be late, to be absent, or to leave early. Those reasons must be supported by competent and acceptable evidence. No employee may report when he likes or chose when to work. No railroad can be efficiently operated for long if voluntary absences are condoned."


        Simply stated, in the 16 months of Claimant's employment he incurred an absentee record which could not be condoned. In fact, on August 23, 1989, Superintendent Packard wrote the Claimant and advised:


        "I have corresponded with you on two different occasions since you were assigned as tamper operator on gang 3807 on July 7, 1989 concerning your fail _to protect your _work assignment.


        I appreciate the problems you encountered.. but the plain fact is that we have a railroad to operate and maintain and I cannot afford to have a production tamper sit and wait for you."


        The discipline is found to be reasonable. In the circumstances, this claim will be denied.


Award: Claim denied.

                                      w

S. A. Hammons, Jr. Emp ee Member D. A. Ring, Carr a Member

Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman

and Neutral Member


Issued February 26, 1991.