w





                              File 920436


      Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Employes

      to and

      Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company

      (Former Missouri Pacific Railroad)


      Statement of Claim: 1. Carrier violated the Agreement, especially Rule 12,

              when C. L. McKinnon (SSN 460-86-1713) was dismissed from

              service on June 1, 1992.


              2. Claim in behalf of Mr. McKinnon for wage loss suffered beginning June 1, 1992, until reinstated with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired.


      Findings: The Board has jurisdiction of this case by reason of

      the parties Agreement establishing this Board therefor.

      Claimant Trackman Curtis L. McKinnon was dismissed from

      service on June 1, 1992.

      Claimant had been given permission on March 31, 1992 to

      keep a doctor's appointment. He did not report for work on

      April 1, 1992. Nothing further was-heard from the Claimant

      until May 20, 1992, when he attempted to return to work.

      The Carrier under date of April 14, 1992 notified the

      Employee to attend a formal investigation on April 14, on

      the charge of:

      "You laid off under false pretense at approximately 1:00 PM

      March 31, 1992 and have been absent without authority since

      April 1, 1992."

      The investigation was postponed and rescheduled for

      April 23. It was again rescheduled and held on Wednesday,

      May 27, 1992. The transcript thereof reflected that the

      Claimant failed to report to work on April 20th after he

      received permission to be off to see a doctor on March 31,

      1992. A woman called on behalf of the Claimant and informed

      the Carrier that "he would be off, could not perform his

      duties, he had an attorney, and was locked up." The

      Claimant reported to work on May 20, 1992.

      Robert Cruz was the Foreman of Gang 2835 in which the

      Claimant worked. The record also showed that Claimant

      McKinnon also had been arrested at his parole office on

                        -2- Award No. 592


        March 31 at 1:00 PM. Further, pursuant to a warrant, issued on March 24, 1992, the County Sheriff's office arrested the Claimant on March 31, 1992 at his probation officer's office and booked him into jail for six violations of the terms of his probation order which, in effect, was then revoked.


        The Claimant was released from the Bexar County Jail on April 6th. The record further reflects that the Claimant had made an appointment with a Dr. Santos' office for February 25, 1982. Claimant testified that he was arrested March 31 and released from jail April 17th into the custody of the drug and alcohol counselor. The Claimant was released therefrom on May 18th into the custody of the probation office.


        Rules 607 and 604 were read into the hearing. Item 3 of Rule 607, Insubordinate and Item 4 of Rule 607 concern conduct. Rule 604 concerns duty-reporting or absence therefrom.


        Carrier would be fairly construing Item 2 of Rule 607 because of the Claimant's negligence in not attempting to contact the railroad during his incarceration. The Claimant was insubordinate by not complying with Rule 604. He was dishonest in his explanation and the rationale given for his absences. It is true that his initial absence on March 31 was approved for the medical appointment. But an incident occurred preventing keeping that appointment. However, the absence from that point on, i.e., from April 1st until he attempted to return to service was unauthorized. The absence was not the fault of Carrier. The incarceration because of a drug related problems for which the Claimant was placed on probation can only be laid at Claimant's feet. The violation is also the Claimant's problem.


        The discipline assessed is not deemed unreasonable. Incarceration is not now nor has it ever been a justifiable reason for an employee to not protect his assignment. Our Board has so previously held. Also see Award No. 8750 of the Second Division. Incarceration and what flows therefrom is the sole responsibility of the Claimant. He and he alone is responsible therefor for placing himself in the position that created the incident and his arrest on March 31 and the absence from work for which found guilty. This claim will be denied.


Award: im denied.

 5. A. Hammons, Jr. Employee Member K by ,Carrier Member

                      ~G~ Ar hur T. Van Wart, Chai-rman

                      and Neutral Member


                      Issued November 27, 1993.