PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes TO DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

          (1) The sixty (60) day suspension assessed B&B Carpenter Maurice Shaw for his alleged responsibility for leaving the Suburban Division Class at approximetely 11:00 a.m. on September 7, 1983 and responsibility for his absence on September 8, 1983 was without just and sufficient cause and capricious. (Organization File 9D-4068; Carrier File 84-84-14-D).


          (2) B&B Carpenter Maurice Shaw shall be allowed the remedy prescribed in Rule 19(d)".


FINDINGS :

 e This $oard, upon the whole record and all the evidence,
 finds and holds that the employes and the-Carrier involved, are
 respectively employes and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway
 Labor Act as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the
 dispute herein.
 The claimant herein is the same as involved in our Award
 No. 29.
 In the present case claimant was, on September 7, 1983,
 attending a safety training seminar at Carrier's Suburban Division
 headquarters, when, at about 11:00 a.m. he was summoned from
 the classroom by a suburban Division clerk, acting upon the request
 of two Chicago City Police officers. He was escorted from the
 property by the Police Officers, and did not return to class.
 He was also absent from his assignment the following day, September 8,
 1983. On September 12 and September 13, 1983, claimant was
 notified to attend separate investigation on the charges:
 "To determine your responsibility in connection with
 your absence from your assignment on September 8, 1983".
 "To determine your responsibility in connection with
 your departure from the Suburban Division Safety Class
      at approximately 11:00 a.m. on September 7, 1983".

                                              5QA ~'~`I

                                              Award No. 30

                                              Docket-No. 35

                                              Page 2


By agreement, one hearing was conducted on the two charges. A transcript of the hearing has been made a part of the record. Following the hearing, claimant was assessed discipline of sixty days actual suspension.

 Rule 14 of Carrier's General Regulations and Safety Rules provide a:-

        "Employes must report for duty at the designated time and vIsce. They must be alert, attentive, and demote themselves exclusively to the Company's service while on duty. They must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties with or substitute others in their place, without proper authority."


In the investigation claimant's Supervisor testified that when claimant left the safety training seminar, about 11:00 a.m. on September 7, 1983, he did not notify anymne that he would not be back, and on September 8, 1983. ciaimnnt was absent from work without notice to him (the Supervisor).

 Claimant testified in the investigation that he was placed under arrest by the City Police officers, taken to the Police station and was in jail on September 7 and 8, 1983. He contended; however-, that he had permission from the Instructor of theSafety Class to leave. He testified that he could not return to work until he had completedthe Safety Class, which was not done until September-15, the Instructor not being available on Septemtier9: The Supervisor testified that it should have taken claimant about one hour to complete the Safety Class, which claimant could have done on September 8, 1983. Claimant stated that he was released abut noon on September 8. He also stated that the reason for his arrest and incarceration was a case of mistaken identity, and that no charge was madeagainst him by the Police officers.

 It has often been held that incarceration is not a valid excuse for absenteeism. There is no proper basis for the Board to disturb the discipline imposed by the Carrier.

                    A W A H D


      Claim denied:


                  Ch irman, Neutral Member-


rriPr- Member ~,`'~ . LAbor Membe

 Dateds ` 5~.