Form 1 NATIONAL RA.ThROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7$52
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7585
 . 2-SOU-CM-'7 9



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
 (
 ( Southern Railway company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:




Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier ox carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193-.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant herein was dismissed from service on June 15, 1976 and was subsequently charged with " ....the continued violation of Rule 30, paragraph B and being absent from your assigned duties without permission on 6-15-76." Following a formal investigation, the discharge was affirmed. Rule 30 provides:




Form 1 Award No. 7852
 Page 2 Docket No. 7585
 2-SOU-CM-' 79
 "sickness under ,para,gxaph (a) above) and/or tardiness
 will not be tolerated and employees so charged shah be
 subject to the disciplinary ,procedures of Rule 34.
 (c) An employee in service who fails to protect his
 assignment due to engaging in other employment shall be
 subject to dismissal,"

 The facts herein afire not in dispute, On June 15, 1976 Claimant arrived at work one hour late. He was assigned to wash down the inside of a dining car. At approximately 11:00 A.M, Claimant could not be found in the axes of his assignment; two supervisors looked fox him but he was not seen until he entered the lunch room at about 11:0 A.M. Later that same days at about 2:00 P.M. Claimant was again away from his assignment. After a search he was found in an abandoned dining car in which the doors had been locked and the window shades pulled. Following this incident, Carrier's supervisor, the Equipment Inspector, determined that he was in violation of Rule 30 (b) and terminated Claimant. The rationale was the history of absenteeism and tardiness together with the incidents of June 15th.

 Petitioner argues that Claimant was not dismissed for good and sufficient cause. Even though Claimant had been absent on many occasions it is contended that he was off in each instance fox good cause: he had family problems and had difficulties relating to child care while he was at work; he had been ill. It is urged that his absences were not unavoidable and that he notified his foreman when he was unavoidably kept from work. The Organization argues, as did the local Chairlady at the investigation, that even if Claimant was guilty, the penalty of dismissal was too severe.

 Carrier points out that Claimant had worked for Carrier fox only 22 years and had devastatingly poor record of attendance. Carrier's witness at the investigation testified that Claimant had not had a full pay period, devoid of absence, since January 1, 1975. He had.been given numerous warnings to improve his attendance according to his foreman. He was also regularly tardy according to Carrier. Claimant's discipline record was taken into consideration b y Carrier in the assessment of the penalty, That record indicated that he had been previously disciplined as follows:







Carrier concluded that the flagrant actions of Claimant on June 15 1976 together with his past record were sufficient grounds to warrant dismissal.
 Foam 1 Page 3

Award No. 7852

Docket No. 7585

2-SOU-CM-'79


Claimant ,presented no explanation fox his conduct on June 15th. His only significant defense was his explanation for absence based on his family problems and the fact that he had notified the foreman each time he was absent ox tardy. He offered no evidence to support his claim that he had been ill, thus explaining some of his absences. Furthermore, the general problem facing Claimant, assuming its validity, does not constitute "good cause" on a continuing and frequent basis. An employee has an obligation to report to work regularly and on time, regardless of his personal problems; this a fundamental aspect of the employment relationship. No company, much less a railroad, can function effectively if it tolerates erratic attendance. Carrier cannot be criticized fox attempting to take firm measures to deter excessive absenteeism and tardiness (see 2nd Division, 1`dRAB Awards 6710, 6240, 6285 among others).. In view of Claimant's improper conduct on June 15, 1976 and in the light of his past record and many warnings, Carrier's disciplinary decision was clearly within its perogatives and must not be disturbed.

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD AIIJUSTMEM . BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 ~o arie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of February, 1979.