Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTPENT BOARD Award No. 7911



    The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Irwin M, Lieberman when award was rendered,


                ( System Federation No. 1, Railway Employes'

                ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.

Parties to Dispute: ( (Blacksmiths)
 _ _._ (

                ( Consolidated Rail Corporation


Dispute: Claim of Employes:
    1. That the Carrier violated Rules 3I+ and 22 of the former Reading

        Railroad Shop Crafts Agreement when on May 27, 1977; Blacksmith

        Helper Daniel T. Edinger z-ras actually given a five (5) days

        suspension and a notation to this effect was made on his service

        record. The actual days of suspension were May 30, 31, June I,

        2, and 3, 1977.


    2, That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to remove the "entry"

        from Mr. Edinger's service record and that the Carrier compensate

        him for all lost time. ,


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

 The carrier or 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, 1934.

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

    Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


This dispute involves an actual suspension of five days, assessed after investigation, based on alleged poor attendance. Rule 22 is cited as relevant to this dispute:

        "In case an employe is unavoidably kept from work he will not be discriminated against. An employe detained from work on account of sickness or for any other good causes shall notify his foreman as early as possible. When known, eznployes are elpected to make advance arrangements if necessary to be absent."


Petitioner contends that the claim should b e sustained on the ground that Claixt:ant was not apprised of the precise charge and further that Carrier's conclusion of Clai~tuant's guilt was unsupported by the evidence.
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No, 7911
          -


Docket No. 7837
 2-CR-BK-'79

 Additionally, Petitioner asserts that Claimant should have received warnings prior to being disciplined.

 An examination of the record does not support the contention of Claimant with respect to the charge being imprecise. In fact the charge specifies dates and the exact amount of time Claimant is alleged to have lost over the six month period, for each occurrence.

 The investigation revealed that over the six month period, encompassing 110 working days, Claimant was absent on six days, late on fourteen days and left work early on six days. Although given every opportunity to do so, Claimant failed to provide any credible ox' legitizr~ate reasons for any of the absences oz tardiness. IIils reasons included: "overslept, .., I don't remember ... personal business" and si::ilar reasons. At no time did Claimant deny the validity of any of the attendance material submitted by Carrier or present arty mitigating circumstances to justify his actions. A reasonable conclusion is that Claimant abused Rule 22 and Carrier's disciplinary actions were supported and justifiable.

 A W A R D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIOTAL RAILROAD ADJUSTIvMIT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


L----1Ro" emaxie Bra.sch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated .t Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of May, 1979.